



c\ .9' s 

A* C?* * 

O d ^ 



v » ’ * o. .0 *!/n1/* V- v * ’ * CV 

,\ ^ ** .>»• ^ % # , ‘^fey . •v ^ . VW% » ^ 

\ Z -W&s***+ ;J W^ ; /\ : -W- : /% ”-W* : /\\fgl : ♦’ 

, V‘"’> ..... V*“‘ o.*•• % '""■ </....\~X 

* o j* sLsrXhZ-' **L G •-$*«.% o 0^ * C° *■ o a* 

^ * a* « ' ^ ^ 

O V . (gi^rS-U/ft - v» cv 



r 0 

<jnw*s>* ^ ^'HSfisr- "° 

^ ^ rs ^ ^Afc. 

rO. >* • <L^ O * \ XJ -j^ ^ 

f v A- * 0 - 0 0 %> * 

^ v v f’*°- C\ <0 V ,*V'* > V s •« • •- cv .9 V .vV', V- 

% a, > ( vvv^ V c> *VSKV’- ^ *>Va!* V /v a 

j; t <bo\ -^ a - B ' 


V .«.* 


• A 


” A, 

* A> A 
ft - A- 0 N 



« 

V* o' 


V *'••- C\ .0 ,»*•% > v 

«■ jA RW /Vi ° r<V /❖ * a 

•° **<? °J|ffp|: 

• \WMm* A* 

_ ™„_»A* V V> 

A 


.o' c 


o 

<$* °. 
x <v ■ 

- ' A SfMik "V ,c v ,V 

. ■‘bit’ :£»• +* 0 « ^ 

s ^ ^ 1,1 iWSsA/^ ° A *<» x 

^ *0.0° V*- **.’• ^° ^ *>*o’ ^ * 

> V *’•»* CV aO s'V % > V % o’* 0 * c\ 

^ <*> * TaA <;, Tx 

*" <>> v ^ 4ic^ 

^ ^ °.W< S % '.W.* ^ <" -y^VV > ^ ^ 

o aJ* . 1 ' * < oi^ o 0 * ® 4 ^o A^' .'■’*, 0^ , 0 * 0 * ^-J .<* 

O o'-’ ^/y7o-i * *c. C • r O .;■* t /><^Z_ » 'r f. . r-s<^\ <- .5 ,|1> < 

'X *-» ' * y 'f‘, $ a w * '’V' « 

*°*n*. 


4 0 */ * *1 O 

❖ ^ -»VK^sO^ 0 v 

r\ J & * ^sCs- 5 ^ • 

<P\ *o»o 

5 • * • ^ 



b ••TT,*’ .o’ 

•> V v .'•». V .o v 

'P- T. AA 

W vTV 

* CP < 




o.. ^ 


4 o 

%<V 


^ O' ° ^44 


\ V 

„ , „ ' <S^XrT%>i? \, >, * TX/7/i >i\\AV ' £. /s ' K 

0.4* *^T* A 

.0^ 0 °r* ^o a n 
•^ o< :^^-. ■%>* - J 

A. . >0 '’ts. .-VK'KS- ■ 

\ ‘^’V .. %'*'-••’ /*■ ^ ^ 'O * 

’*°' ^ -Jy° ^ V> O' A<r s'Vl% 4> V N ^’* 0 - 

: ;J^: XA : M$ r \<? :mk\ XS : 

XX ; .^^** A A ’• 

A* '0.4* 0 O '..s' ' 0 . » * , 0 

., .-‘■J- % y ,••*.. "*0, a' , 

.N * Jf'TV /XX, ~Y*. ^ . *j^S\Vh* >J . 

o Y - - 




o’ 

-.’S 

O »^ 



V ^ 

» v* A ' 

4 V* O' ° <? 


4>*_ v!^ 

o > 



O' 

0 " ° 



■ * A K Jyl 

\. ^ p • *■ 

?. a • s 5* 


-jeu^* i°*+ •W^ t: > 0 ^ .«, 

A 

"• > v % . ■ ••- V, *0* ,•••'. *> V s •••“• V .0^ .•••-. "> 

A/ \/ /^fe'v \/ .*^IA \/ 

?.* ^ . 



o w c 


^ ^ W / \ •: 

<y '°*‘’* A<j V \3 

• 1 " * ^ .0^ e o w c ^ ^ 


<<> 



p + A ■ ,i *, ,i '*m\v$' ' N' 

’* •••’•’ / ^y 

o. aO V s' •*> A V X S 

° \ X * *■ '* 

° 'A V* “ 

o 


* Xp c u c 
’- ^0^ -. -oV V 

CV * \* A J. V ' X V^S J “ « a(' 

o * tfl1 . 0 %>. ‘■c.o’ 

» • O *V~4 r\ ^ 4 • . . '^•S 


4 O 
■a/ 

4* 



V *•--“ ^ ‘oTo’ 

> V s’* 0 - O. aO s 5 • ' ' 4. ^ V 

.: W :’4&- :smk\ XX :'iMk 




p^ v 

K ; f /\ xx /\ : -|®. ; i» 

‘ "Vt ^x ■ * v<^ Srv 





'<U " 1 A 

o .0 v 

*f> .i> 4 

’ A 



•*o« 


*■ O * 0 ’ 

v, y 

4 O * ^nO^C + *f* >. O c *. O • 1 ' • * (V r o " a 

aN * JW/VVb -vr v; • cCvNv ^ o J V /K>2_ + 'i* r ^ 0 

K ^llltf/y^ * *P £ H <sa\\i|%* vN * j^tOTTP^ v^ * 

oV .£M£*. *<■* .«^**- - ol > ;/M^\ +* 0 « „', 

A 7 1 * * «J Q 

(k, v * ‘^yy/ibj? ? ^ ^ A ><v 

o y\ s .., ^> ’" / *--• V v^‘y -o 

$» , *<* -a •* * ▼ V • ♦ • o _ o n* t * • , ^ v . \ v 

v ; ^ %/ .^.\/.^-. A °- •' 

y/\A% AV 


* , ! * ^ ,CT 







/ °-* ’ 

< V : ^ v y <b 
. & • •, *> «\ *?> . 

4 -- V 0 ’ • °-r O -0 

<v * A ft JS • ■'£> .*& t 

<A ♦(mgg/k,® A * 

y*#^ * * cv^vZJJO//^ ° cT* 


O A, 

*o •'*> .... '-<, ”•• 

- ° A >'e,mk % 

o V . XjgftfWQ - V* o' 

• 0 -7* • bSLW • 4 r~. 

. b <*» <?> ^ 

.. - ♦ rv a. * ^h\\\\V * \> 

• * O ^ <£■ "’ <A ( 

I ' i U rO * „ „ o 0 4X* 


0 " 0 





<-S \T 

" ° • * * < ^ + 

> ,0^ c ° " 0 , % 

\j • O 



a «V*^ 

\\ »<. ° 

4 * V ‘ 




* 0 %. . 

♦ (A ^ # 

• a° ^ J %;v 

-j $ s 4 >• ;, "> 0 


A V< ^ 

* 'Y ■& 


, .. *+<? 

- _ / <£? ^ 

<v ,0^ ^o> 4 . 

n v ^ 

^ /U o . * O 

■* ^ -c ^ ,: o^NvAn^U^ 

o^° *.., v* 0 " 0 ’ ^ ^°° y °o -*.. 

V vVlT^v ^ , V *yo. ^ ... *> V V f ,. 0# ^ 


*+Q< 






S V *^v 

' • • s % A <|‘ ' O . » 

A . t >» <* n v 

^ vr ♦Wfe.’ ^ C° - c 
A? V . - v* o v 0 




^ v "^ t . ' •A ^ 

\ ^ ^ VHuVvT* ' N.^ 

) rO ■» * /it' O 

V *0,0° ^ o * 

s 4 **% *> O’ .**o, ^ 



yy ,-t> *• JkImZx^ * V> « 

o V . IkM^k^Ti- * v* 0 X 




0 " 1 ^° ^ * 0 «o ° O o, *.; i - 

^ *V(\^>f^/L*o ^ -O vi>- « » ft^'. ^ .-jr 

J\\ KH /h \p • v, aV t A p r^. A ♦ 

*?*/\ '•» A\ # 

O v„ #s « A <\ '<>.„* *+ 

0 V c 0"° < y> A .*•"», ^ rtV 0B0 *P 

\J • c^^XV.u.^ O <!*■£• i /y?^-, f ^ f U C -rv. ^ . O 




^ A 



A 0 ’ 

1*°' ^ aO^ 



H o 

A ^ 

• • -° y °^ *'*’* f° 



y v -, 
...* 4 y 

0^ c °_: ° * **c 


























Ll.^y QcOou vfo *4J OH-iGS 

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 


Effectiveness And Administration 
Of The Eight Canyon Job Corps 
Civilian Conservation Center 
Under The Economic Opportunity 
Act Of 1964 

Mescalero, New Mexico s.,™,,, 

Department of the interior 
Office Of Economic Opportunity 


BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL 
OF THE UNITED STATES 


JUNE30.196S 






COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 


B-130515 


To the President of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives 

This is our report on the effectiveness and administration of 
the Eight Canyon Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Mescalero, 
New Mexico, operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, under an interdepartmental agreement with the Office of 
Economic Opportunity pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Act of 


1964 


This report supplements our summary report to the Congress 
on the "Review of Economic Opportunity Programs" (B-130515, 
March 18, 1969). Our review was made pursuant to title II of the 
Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967 (81 Stat. 727). 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Bureau of 
the Budget; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of the Interior; and 
the Director, Office of Economic Opportunity. 



Comptroller General 
of the United States 













COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S 
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 


EFFECTIVENESS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
EIGHT CANYON JOB CORPS CIVILIAN 
CONSERVATION CENTER, MESCALERO, NEW MEXICO— 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF 
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY B-130515 


DIGEST 


WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE 

hvJthl r 3W d1rec n ted the Comptroller General to review programs authorized 
y the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, to determine: 

—the efficiency of the administration of the programs and 
"irTthe^ct t0 WhlCh theSG programs achieve the objectives set forth 


n Th 4 1 *rrrl^ C ° nClUSi0nS a I ld r ^ commen dations of the General Accounting 
Office vGAO) in response to the above directive are contained in its 

summary report to the Congress on the "Review of Economic Opportunity 
Programs" (B-130515, March 18, 1969). y 


This report, which supplements the summary report, pertains to the 
Eight Canyon Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center in Mescalero 
New Mexico, operated by the Department of the Interior under an in¬ 
terdepartmental agreement with the Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0). 


The Administration has announced plans to close a number of conserva¬ 
tion centers, including the Eight Canyon Center, by July 1, 1969. These 

^"review consideration by the ingress at the time GAO completed 


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Regarding the effectiveness of the Center's program, GAO found that: 

—A major deterrent to the Center's accomplishment of the primary Job 
Corps goal --training of underprivileged youth—was the policy to 
carry out vocational training primarily within the context of con¬ 
servation work projects, with little emphasis placed on developing 
a skill training program within the projects. Many projects ap¬ 
peared to have limited utility toward producing skills for marketable 
trades. 


Tear Sheet 


JUNE3 0,1969 










Corpsmen were often assigned to projects without regard to their 
vocational needs or desires and were excused from educational classes 
to expedite completion of the projects. (See p. 16.) 

--A general lack of emphasis on the academic training program reduced 
the opportunity for corpsmen to achieve their maximum potential. 
Excessive class absences by both corpsmen and instructors existed. 
Corpsmen were assigned to vocational training programs before achiev¬ 
ing the academic level needed to successfully participate. Corpsmen 
could not achieve the necessary educational improvements under such 
permissive conditions. The academic levels of corpsmen were gener¬ 
ally low upon entry, and overall recorded gains did not appear im¬ 
pressive. (See p. 35.) 

--An orderly and systematic program of counseling is important in as¬ 
sisting corpsmen to make the social, educational, and vocational 
adjustments necessary to satisfactorily complete the Job Corps pro¬ 
gram and to obtain worthwhile employment or further training. 

Counseling had not been conducted on a systematic basis; records had 
not been maintained; and the corpsman advisory system--a system designed 
to help a corpsman establish career goals and motivate him to 
achieve his goal--generally had not been effective. (See p. 46.) 

--The criteria for graduation which had been developed by the Center 
were inadequate to ensure that corpsmen had developed the minimum 
standards of conduct and performance needed to obtain and retain em¬ 
ployment. These criteria were in effect until uniform graduation 
criteria were prescribed by Job Corps for all civilian conservation 
centers in May 1968. (See p. 53.) 

--Increasing the corpsmen's length of stay is vitally important if 
corpsmen are to be provided with sufficient training to obtain 
meaningful jobs. About 70 percent of the corpsmen stayed at the 
Center less than the 6 months considered essential by Job Corps for 
developing the attributes needed for responsible, productive citizen¬ 
ship. (See p. 61.) 

Regarding the efficiency of the administration of the Center's program, 

GAO found that: 

--About $47,500 worth of property not being used or being ineffectively 
used had not been declared excess. Adequate inventory procedures 
did not exist for certain assets, and a number of assets were either 
not accounted for or not recorded. (See p. 65.) 

--The appraisal method utilized in determining the estimated value of 
work projects completed by the Center was inadequate to ensure that 
the values assigned to the projects were realistic. (See p. 76.) 


RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS 


GAO is making a number of specific recommendations for improving the 
program at this Center and at other centers in the event that the Congress 
decides to continue the conservation centers either at the present ca¬ 
pacity or at the reduced capacity planned by the Administration. To in¬ 
crease the effectiveness of the program, GAO is recommending that 0E0: 

--In consonance with other Government agencies having cognizance for 
the operations of conservation centers, reexamine the current policy 
of providing training primarily through conservation work projects 
with a view toward taking such actions as may be required to develop 
a vocational training program which will permit corpsmen to develop 
skills needed for worthwhile employment in occupations above the 
helper or laborer category. (See p. 33.) 

--Require that the Center establish procedures to minimize class 
absences by both corpsmen and instructors and that appropriate 
measures be considered for providing low-achieving corpsmen with 
opportunities to reach academic levels needed for successful 
participation in vocational training programs before their assign¬ 
ment to such programs. (See p. 41.) 

--Require that counseling be conducted on a regularly scheduled basis, 
records of counseling services be maintained, and the need to prop¬ 
erly implement the Corpsman Advisory System at the centers be 
emphasized. (See p. 50.) 

To increase the efficiency of the administration of the Civilian Con¬ 
servation Program, GAO is recommending that 0E0: 

--Together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, ensure that the audit 
staffs responsible for making reviews at conservation centers place 
increased emphasis on reviewing the effectiveness with which the 
conservation centers utilize and dispose of property. (See p. 75.) 

--Develop and follow a realistic appraisal system in assigning values 
to conservation work. (See p. 81.) 


AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 

The Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of the Interior 
agreed, in general, with GAO's findings as they relate to this Center. 
Actions implementing changes to correct the noted weaknesses either had 
been made or were being made. Exception was taken by 0E0 to GAO's rec¬ 
ommendation that it consider providing low-achieving corpsmen with op¬ 
portunities to reach academic levels needed for successful participation 


Tear Sheet 






in vocational programs before their assignment to such programs. 0E0 
and Department of the Interior comments are recognized in the various 
sections of the report as appropriate. 


MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS 

The matters presented in this report are for consideration by the con¬ 
gressional committees having oversight responsibility for federally 
assisted anti poverty programs. In view of the interest shown by members 
of the Congress in anti poverty programs generally, GAO is bringing its 
findings and observations to the attention of the Congress for general 
information purposes. 



Contents 

Page 

DIGEST i 

INTRODUCTION 5 

Job Corps Program 5 

Eight Canyon Center 10 

POTENTIAL FOR JOB CORPS CONSERVATION CENTERS 

TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE TRAINING 13 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EIGHT CANYON CENTER'S 

TRAINING PROGRAM 16 

Need for improvements in the vocational 

training program 16 

Training courses 16 

Utility of work projects toward producing 

skills for marketable trades 18 

Assignment of corpsmen to vocational 

training 20 

Absences from education classes 22 

Length of certain vocational training 

programs 25 

Evaluations of Center's programs by 0E0 27 

Changes required by agency Task Force 

Report 28 

Conclusions and agency comments 29 

Recommendation to the Director of 0E0 33 

Need for improvements in the academic train¬ 
ing program 35 

Enrollee academic progress 35 

Absenteeism 37 

Rotation of corpsmen with low academic 
levels between education and work ex¬ 
perience programs 38 

Conclusions 40 

Recommendations to the Director of 0E0 41 

Need to improve counseling program 46 

Professional counseling 46 

Corpsman advisory system 47 

Conclusions 49 

Recommendations to the Director of 0E0 50 

Uniform graduating criteria to be applied 53 





Page 


Conclusions and agency comments 59 

Short length of stay of corpsmen 61 

Conclusions and agency comments 63 

EFFICIENCY OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE EIGHT CANYON 

CENTER 65 

Weaknesses in controls over and utilization 

of property 65 

Property management 65 

Utilization of property 66 

Automotive and maintenance shop 

equipment--cost $7,360 66 

Textbooks and related teaching 

materials--cost $7,490 67 

Library books 67 

Tape duplicators, dictating re¬ 
corders, and transcribing ma¬ 
chines—cost $3,370 68 

Laundry equipment 68 

Leased vehicles--rental cost $7,250 69 

Controls over property 70 

Unrecorded assets 70 

Items unaccounted for 71 

Inventory procedures for materials 

and supplies 71 

Conclusions 73 

Recommendation to the Director of 0E0 

and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 75 

Assignment of project appraisal value 76 

Conclusions 79 

Recommendation to the Director of 0E0 81 

SCOPE OF REVIEW 83 

Appendix 

APPENDIXES 

Eight Canyon Civilian Conservation 
Center operating costs for calendar 
year 1967 I 86 




Appendix Page 


Eight Canyon Civilian Conservation 
Center terminations of corpsmen 
entering Center during calendar 
year 1967, as of June 28, 1968 
Eight Canyon Civilian Conservation 
Center materials and supplies not 
used or used ineffectively 
Comments by the Acting Director, Of¬ 
fice of Economic Opportunity 
Comments by the Director of Survey 
and Review, Department of the 
Interior 

Principal officials of the Office of 
Economic Opportunity and the Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior responsible 
for the administration of activities 
di scussed in this report 


II 89 

III 90 

IV 91 

V 96 


VI 100 
















COMPTROLLLER GENERAL'S 
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 


EFFECTIVENESS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
EIGHT CANYON JOB CORPS CIVILIAN 
CONSERVATION CENTER, MESCALERO, NEW MEXICO— 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF 
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY B-130515 


DIGEST 


WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE 


A 1967 law directed the Comptroller General to review programs authorized 
by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, to determine: 


the efficiency of the administration of the programs and 

--the extent to which these programs achieve the objectives set forth 
in the act. 

^. OVe L a ]L conclusions and re commendations of the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) in response to the above directive are contained in its 
summary report to the Congress on the “Review of Economic Opportunity 
Programs" (B-130515, March 18, 1969). P * 

This report, which supplements the summary report, pertains to the 
Eight Canyon Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center in Mescalero 
New Mexico, operated by the Department of the Interior under an in¬ 
terdepartmental agreement with the Office of Economic Opportunity (0E0). 

The Administration has announced plans to close a number of conserva¬ 
tion centers, including the Eight Canyon Center, by July 1, 1969. These 
plans were under consideration by the Congress at the time GAO completed 
its review. 


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 


Regarding the effectiveness of the Center's program, GAO found that: 

--A major deterrent to the Center's accomplishment of the primary Job 
Corps goal--training of underprivileged youth—was the policy to 
carry out vocational training primarily within the context of con¬ 
servation work projects, with little emphasis placed on developing 
a skill training program within the projects. Many projects ap¬ 
peared to have limited utility toward producing skills for marketable 
trades. 


1 










Corpsmen were often assigned to projects without regard to their 
vocational needs or desires and were excused from educational classes 
to expedite completion of the projects. (See p. 16.) 

--A general lack of emphasis on the academic training program reduced 
the opportunity for corpsmen to achieve their maximum potential. 
Excessive class absences by both corpsmen and instructors existed. 
Corpsmen were assigned to vocational training programs before achiev¬ 
ing the academic level needed to successfully participate. Corpsmen 
could not achieve the necessary educational improvements under such 
permissive conditions. The academic levels of corpsmen were gener¬ 
ally low upon entry, and overall recorded gains did not appear im¬ 
pressive. (See p. 35.) 

--An orderly and systematic program of counseling is important in as¬ 
sisting corpsmen to make the social, educational, and vocational 
adjustments necessary to satisfactorily complete the Job Corps pro¬ 
gram and to obtain worthwhile employment or further training. 

Counseling had not been conducted on a systematic basis; records had 
not been maintained; and the corpsman advisory system--a system designed 
to help a corpsman establish career goals and motivate him to 
achieve his goal--generally had not been effective. (See p. 46.) 

--The criteria for graduation which had been developed by the Center 
were inadequate to ensure that corpsmen had developed the minimum 
standards of conduct and performance needed to obtain and retain em¬ 
ployment. These criteria were in effect until uniform graduation 
criteria were prescribed by Job Corps for all civilian conservation 
centers in May 1968. (See p. 53.) 

—Increasing the corpsmen's length of stay is vitally important if 
corpsmen are to be provided with sufficient training to obtain 
meaningful jobs. About 70 percent of the corpsmen stayed at the 
Center less than the 6 months considered essential by Job Corps for 
developing the attributes needed for responsible, productive citizen¬ 
ship. (See p. 61.) 

Regarding the efficiency of the administration of the Center's program, 

GAO found that: 

--About $47,500 worth of property not being used or being ineffectively 
used had not been declared excess. Adequate inventory procedures 
did not exist for certain assets, and a number of assets were either 
not accounted for or not recorded. (See p. 65.) 

--The appraisal method utilized in determining the estimated value of 
work projects completed by the Center was inadequate to ensure that 
the values assigned to the projects were realistic. (See p. 76.) 


2 


RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS 


GAO is making a number of specific recommendations for improving the 

thl ^. Cente l l " and other centers in the event that the Congress 
decides to continue the conservation centers either at the present ca¬ 
pacity or at the reduced capacity planned by the Administration. To in¬ 
crease the erfectiveness of the program, GAO is recommending that 0E0: 

consona ^ ce with other Government agencies having cognizance for 
t e operations of conservation centers, reexamine the current policy 
°T.P r0V1 . ing training primarily through conservation work projects 
with a view toward taking such actions as may be required to develop 
a vocational training program which will permit corpsmen to develop 
skills needed for worthwhile employment in occupations above the 
helper or laborer category. (See p. 33.) 

--Require that the Center establish procedures to minimize class 
absences by both corpsmen and instructors and that appropriate 
measures be considered for providing low-achieving corpsmen with 
opportunities to reach academic levels needed for successful 
participation in vocational training programs before their assign¬ 
ment to such programs. (See p. 41.) 

--Require that counseling be conducted on a regularly scheduled basis, 
records of counseling services be maintained, and the need to prop¬ 
erly implement the Corpsman Advisory System at the centers be 
emphasized. (See p. 50.) 

To increase the efficiency of the administration of the Civilian Con¬ 
servation Program, GAO is recommending that 0E0: 

—Together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, ensure that the audit 
staffs responsible for making reviews at conservation centers place 
increased emphasis on reviewing the effectiveness with which the 
conservation centers utilize and dispose of property. (See p. 75.) 

--Develop and follow a realistic appraisal system in assigning values 
to conservation work. (See p. 81.) 


AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 

The Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of the Interior 
agreed, in general, with GAO's findings as they relate to this Center. 
Actions implementing changes to correct the noted weaknesses either had 
been made or were being made. Exception was taken by 0E0 to GAO's rec¬ 
ommendation that it consider providing low-achieving corpsmen with op¬ 
portunities to reach academic levels needed for successful participation 


3 




in vocational programs before their assignment to such programs. 0E0 
and Department of the Interior comments are recognized in the various 
sections of the report as appropriate. 


MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS 


The matters presented in this report are for consideration by the con¬ 
gressional committees having oversight responsibility for federally 
assisted anti poverty programs. In view of the interest shown by members 
of the Congress in anti poverty programs generally, GAO is bringing its 
findings and observations to the attention of the Congress for general 
information purposes. 


4 



INTRODUCTION 


t-u General Accounting Office has made a review of 

Center ° f the Eight Canyon Civilian Conservation 

bv the’ R 6 r°; MeXiC °- 11113 Center is operated 

rior unHp SaU ° f Indlan Affalr s, Department of the Inte- 
f „ r an . ln ^ er departmental agreement with the Of- 
r ice of Economic Opportunity. 

°t r rev _ lew ’ which was performed for the primary pur¬ 
pose of complying with title II of the Economic Opportu¬ 
nity Amendments of 1967, was directed toward an evalua- 
tton of the effectiveness and efficiency of the operation 
and administration of the Center in meeting the objec- 

ives of the act. An outline of the scope of our review 
is set forth on page 83. 

The principal officials of the Office of Economic 
Opportunity and the Department of the Interior respon¬ 
sible for the administration of activities discussed in 
this report are listed in appendix VI. 

JOB CORPS PROGRAM 


The Job Corps was established under title I, part A 
of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2701)' 
which was amended each succeeding year--the most recent 
amendments having been enacted in December 1967. The 

purpose of the Job Corps is stated in title I, section 
1U1, of the act which provides: 

"This part establishes a Job Corps for low- 
income, disadvantaged young men and women, sets 
forth standards and procedures for selecting 
individuals as enrollees in the Job Corps, au¬ 
thorizes the establishment of residential and/or 
nonresidential centers in which enrollees will 
participate in intensive programs of education, 
vocational training, work experience, counsel¬ 
ing, and other activities, and prescribes vari¬ 
ous other powers, duties, and responsibilities 
incident to the operation and continuing devel¬ 
opment of the Job Corps. Its purpose is to 


5 




assist young persons who need and can benefit 
from an unusually intensive program, operated 
in a group setting, to become more responsible, 
employable, and productive citizens; and to do 
so in a way that contributes, where feasible, 
to the development of National, State, and com¬ 
munity resources, and to the development and 
dissemination of techniques for working with 
the disadvantaged that can be widely utilized 
by public and private institutions and agen¬ 
cies ." 

Initially, youths aged 16 through 21 years were eli¬ 
gible to participate in the Job Corps; however, the 1967 
amendments to the act reduced the minimum age to 14 years. 
The act authorizes training for a maximum period of 
2 years. 

The Job Corps is organized in three basic types of 
operations--men's urban centers, women's urban centers, 
and men's rural conservation centers. The Director, Job 
Corps, directs and supervises the Job Corps program. He. 
is responsible for the objectives, policies, standards, 
requirements, and overall program design for the opera¬ 
tion of the centers. The 0E0 regional offices are re¬ 
sponsible for the field direction and policy implementa¬ 
tion of the Job Corps program. The Federal and State 
agencies and the industrial and nonprofit organizations 
under contract with the Government are responsible for 
the operation and the administration of the centers. 

Enrollment of Job Corps centers is limited by law to 
45,000 men and women. The 1967 amendments to the act pro¬ 
vide that by June 30, 1968, at least 25 percent of the 
enrollment is to be women and that as soon as practicable 
women should comprise 50 percent of the enrollment. As of 
December 1968, the Job Corps enrollment was about 32,000, 
of which 9,600, or 30 percent, were women. Of the 22,400 
males enrolled, 12,500 were assigned to conservation cen¬ 
ters . 


During the early part of 1968, 0E0 closed four men's 
urban centers and 11 conservation centers and did not open 


6 


one planned conservation center because of fund limita¬ 
tions. Closures were limited to men’s centers because of 
the requirement that women should comprise 50 percent of 
the enrollment. As of December 1968, 0E0 was administer¬ 
ing six men’s urban centers, 18 women's urban centers, 
and 82 men's conservation centers. Also, 0E0 was admin¬ 
istering three special centers for carrying out experi¬ 
mental projects. 

The urban centers, which are generally located in or 
near metropolitan areas, are operated under contracts 
with industrial or nonprofit organizations. The conser¬ 
vation centers, which are located in rural areas, are 
principally operated by agencies of the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Agriculture pursuant to 
interdepartmental agreements with 0E0, while a few are 
operated under contracts with the States. 

It was anticipated that corpsmen assigned to a con¬ 
servation center would increase their basic academic 
skills to a point where they could undertake vocational 
training at the urban centers. Vocational training at 
conservation centers was limited to learning the use of 
basic tools, to plan and organize work, and to have good 
work habits. They were to serve as stepping-stones to 
urban centers. 

Early in calendar year 1966, Job Corps revised its 
policy to provide that vocational training programs, de¬ 
signed around the work program, were to be instituted at 
the civilian conservation centers primarily to ensure 
that those corpsmen who did not transfer to urban centers 
would be taught some type of marketable skill. 

The Civilian Conservation Center program has evolved 
to where, at present, the goal is to have each corpsman 
reach at least a minimum level of employability within 
the conservation center assigned. This policy, which was 
formalized in May 1968, means that the goal of the Civil¬ 
ian Conservation Center program is to fully train partic¬ 
ipating corpsmen for employment, although corpsmen are 
not precluded from transferring to Job Corps urban cen¬ 
ters or to other training programs. 


7 







Recruiting of applicants is performed by private or 
public nonprofit agencies, such as a local Community Ac¬ 
tion Program, which are authorized by Job Corps to re¬ 
cruit and refer applicants for screening. The screening 
and interviewing of male applicants for Job Corps is per¬ 
formed primarily by the United States Employment Service. 
Their applications are forwarded to the 0E0 regional of¬ 
fice for selection and assignment. 

Prior to November 1968, assignment to a men's urban 
center or to a conservation center was dependent on an 
applicant's achievement on a reading test given by the 
screening agency. Generally, nonreaders and beginning 
readers were assigned to conservation centers, whereas 
upper intermediate and advanced readers were assigned to 
urban centers. Under the revised procedures adopted in 
November 1968, applicants are to be assigned to centers 
closest to their homes irrespective of their reading test 
scores. Section 106 of the act requires that at least 40 
percent of male enrollees be assigned to conservation 
centers or to other centers or projects where their work 
activity is primarily directed to the conservation, de¬ 
velopment, or management of public natural resources or 
recreational areas. 

Job Corps policies provide that the conservation 
centers carry out a work experience program (on-the-job 
vocational training) in addition to other educational and 
vocational training programs. The work experience pro¬ 
gram is based on conservation work projects or center op¬ 
eration assignments and is designed to develop positive 
work habits and attitudes and, at the same time, provide 
corpsmen with entry level occupational skills and related 
knowledge above the helper or laborer levels. The cen¬ 
ters may, on a limited basis, provide specialized voca¬ 
tional programs, such as small appliance repair courses, 
which do not require conservation work projects or center 
operation assignments. 

Generally, conservation center work projects are de¬ 
signed to develop and improve conservation land and proj¬ 
ects under the supervision of the Department of Agricul¬ 
ture and/or the Department of the Interior which maintain 


8 


the land on which they are performed. The agencies plan 
the work, and corpsmen are assigned to specific tasks. 
Specific projects may include such things as landscaping, 
forest culture and protection, water control, irrigation, 
drainage, erosion control, construction and repair of 
buildings and recreation facilities, and construction and 
repair of roads and trails. 

At the conservation centers, center directors are 
responsible for all activities and for the supervision of 
all personnel assigned to the centers. Under guidelines 
prescribed by the responsible operating agencies, the 
center directors supervise the work program, center ad¬ 
ministration, logistics, and other activities for which 
the agency is responsible. Under guidelines prescribed 
by 0E0, the center directors supervise corpsmen disci¬ 
pline, welfare, health, education, recreation, and other 
activities. 

Corps members are entitled to an initial regular 
monthly living allowance of $30. They may be given in¬ 
centive increases in $5 increments which may, together 
with the basic living allowance, not exceed $35 a month 
during the first 6 months of his or her participation in 
the program and $50 a month thereafter. In addition to 
the living allowance, corps members are entitled, upon 
leaving the center, to a readjustment allowance of $50 
for each month of satisfactory participation, subject to 
certain restrictions. Allotments of the readjustment al¬ 
lowance up to $25 may be made to a corps member’s wife or 
child, and 0E0 will match the amount allotted. GAO has 
made a review of corpsmen’s pay and allowances and will 
issue a separate report on this matter. 


9 








EIGHT CANYON CENTER 


Operation of the civilian conservation centers of 
the Department of the Interior is carried out through 
five participating bureaus and their field offices. Op¬ 
eration of the Eight Canyon Center is administered by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs' Albuquerque, New Mexico, Area 
Office. 

The Bureau's responsibilities include the opera¬ 
tion, administration, logistical support, and work expe¬ 
rience aspects of the program. Additional responsibili¬ 
ties include consulting with Job Corps headquarters on 
the policy and requirements in accordance with the inter¬ 
departmental agreement. The Bureau's Data Center, lo¬ 
cated at Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides supporting 
fiscal services, which include maintaining accounting 
records and preparing financial reports, for all Bureau 
activities including conservation centers. 

The Eight Canyon Conservation Center, which is lo¬ 
cated on the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation about 35 
miles northeast of Alamogordo, New Mexico, occupies 200 
acres of land leased from the Mescalero Apache Tribe. 
Construction of the Center was begun in May 1965 and was 
substantially complete by June 1966. The Center, which 
is designed to accommodate about 200 corpsmen, was acti¬ 
vated in March 1966 and received its first corpsmen on 
March 9, 1966. 

Our analysis showed that, of 504 corpsmen who en¬ 
tered the Center during calendar year 1967, 237, or about 
47 percent, terminated their enrollment in less than 90 
days and a total of 350, or about 70 percent, in less 
than 6 months. Additionally, by June 28, 1968, 439, or 
approximately 87 percent, of the 504 had terminated their 
enrollment. 

Our analysis showed further that, of the 439 termi¬ 
nations, 30 remained at the Center for as long as 
9 months including eight who remained for as long as a 
year. Moreover, Center records showed that as of 
April 16, 1968, at least 837 corpsmen had terminated 


10 



their enrollment from the Center. Available placement 
records at the Center showed that, of the 837 corpsmen 
who had terminated, 119 had obtained jobs including 15 
who had been placed in jobs which appeared to be either 
directly or indirectly related to the principal training 
they had received at the Center. 

Organization of the Eight Canyon Center consisted of 
five departments—administrative, education, residential 
living, works, and counseling—and included the following 
broad areas of concentration: 

1. Counseling, 

2. Basic education in reading, math, language 
skills, and world of work. 

3. Work experience to supply corpsmen with entry 
level occupational skills and improved work hab¬ 
its and attitudes. 

4. Driver education. 

5. Medical and health programs. 

6. Recreation and physical education. 

Jobs Corps policy provided that total corpsmen time 
at 200-man conservation centers was to be distributed 
42.5 percent to academic training, 42.5 percent to work 
experience programs, and 15 percent to such center opera¬ 
tions as kitchen police and dormitory duties. Generally 
the time spent in specialized vocational training pro¬ 
grams was included as part of the academic training. At 
the time of our field review, Center scheduling called 
for corpsmen to receive either academic or work experi¬ 
ence on an alternating week basis. 

As authorized by the Job Corps Conservation Center 
Table of Organization, the Center's staff consisted of 
52 employees on February 6, 1968. 


11 





Section 105 of the Economic Opportunity Amendments 
of 1966 directs 0E0 to take necessary action to ensure 
that during any fiscal year the direct operating costs 
of Job Corps centers in operation more than 9 months do 
not exceed $7,500 per enrollee man-year. Under the Eco¬ 
nomic Opportunity Amendments of 1967 this amount was re¬ 
duced to $6,900 per enrollee man-year. 

Congressional hearings have indicated that the limi¬ 
tation is a nationwide average and includes all direct 
operating costs of the centers—such as maintenance, 
food, clothing, supplies, and services--as well as the 
corpsmen's direct costs—such as salary, allowances, and 
travel. Costs not included are those for Job Corps head¬ 
quarters and regional support, agency direction (Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior), screening, payroll administration, 
amortization of capital investment for center rehabilita¬ 
tion and equipment, work projects materials and supplies, 
and depreciation of center facilities. 

The Center's average annual operating cost per 
corpsman man-year during calendar year 1967, computed on 
the basis of costs compiled by 0E0 as applicable under 
section 105, amounted to $5,918 and the indirect costs 
amounted to $2,244 per corpsman, representing a total 
cost of $8,162 per corpsman man-year. A schedule of the 
total cost per corpsman man-year is included as appen¬ 
dix I. 

0E0 has reported that for fiscal year 1968 direct 
operating costs for the Center amounted to $6,338 and in¬ 
direct costs amounted to $2,567 per corpsman man-year, 
representing a total cost per corpsman man-year of 
$8,905. 


12 


POTENTIAL FOR JOB CORPS CONSERVATION CENTERS 


TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE TRAINING 


In our overall report on the "Review of Economic Op¬ 
portunity Programs" (B-130515, March 18, 1969), which re¬ 
sulted from our review undertaken pursuant to title II of 
the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967, we concluded 
that we have considerable doubt as to whether conservation 
centers can be expected to provide the intensive training 
contemplated in the act, at least without substantially 
upgrading the vocational training program which appears to 
be quite costly. A primary consideration was that conser¬ 
vation centers generally provided vocational training 
through the performance of conservation work projects, with 
little or no related vocational classroom instruction. 

We recognize that the conservation work in itself has 
value; that most of the centers have some work projects 
which permit exposure to some occupational skills; and 
that, generally, work projects are a good vehicle for in¬ 
stilling proper work habits in corps members. However, the 
size and complexity of the work projects coming to our at¬ 
tention at the conservation centers we reviewed generally 
were not of a nature to serve as a basis for intensive vo¬ 
cational training. It does not appear to us that the use 
of work projects as the primary vehicle for providing vo¬ 
cational training would permit the centers to establish 
and operate an effective training program directed toward 
skill development in occupational areas above the helper 
or laborer categories. 

Job Corps and the administering departments of con¬ 
servation centers, Agriculture and Interior, recognized 
that weaknesses and deficiencies had existed in training 
programs at the centers and, in a joint effort, considered 
means for improvement. However, our perusal of the re¬ 
quirements prescribed in May 1968 by Job Corps, in conjunc¬ 
tion with the departments, for improvements in the training 
program indicated that, in order for corps members to ac¬ 
complish the minimum requirements for program completion 
in the various occupational areas, corps members would need 


13 










an opportunity to take part in intensive classroom and 
work-experience programs directed specifically toward 
development of the knowledge and technical skills needed 
beyond the helper and laborer categories. 

It appears to be quite costly to establish intensive 
vocational training programs at each of the 82 centers in 
a number of vocational areas for the 100 to 250 corpsmen 
enrolled. Moreover, it is questionable whether a suffi¬ 
cient number of qualified instructors could be obtained to 
provide such training at the generally remote and isolated 
conservation center locations. 

In summary, it is probable that a valid need can be 
documented for residential training of the type envisioned 
in Job Corps for a certain number of youths whose needs, 
because of environmental characteristics or because of 
geographic location, cannot be well served through other 
programs operating in or near their home communities. We 
have doubt, however, that, in light of our findings and the 
cost of this type of training, the resources now being ap¬ 
plied to the conservation center program can be fully jus¬ 
tified, particularly in consideration of the significant 
changes which appear necessary in this component to upgrade 
its effectiveness in achieving training program objectives. 

In accordance with the foregoing conclusions, we rec¬ 
ommended in our overall report that the Congress consider 
whether the Job Corps program, particularly with respect 
to conservation centers, is sufficiently achieving the 
purposes for which it was created to justify its retention 
at present levels. 

The Administration has announced plans to close a num¬ 
ber of conservation centers, including the Eight Canyon 
Center, by July 1, 1969. These plans were under consider¬ 
ation by the Congress at the time we completed our review. 

The findings on our review of the Eight Canyon Civil¬ 
ian Conservation Center are discussed in greater detail in 
the succeeding sections of this report. We are also offer¬ 
ing specific recommendations for improving the administra¬ 
tion of the program at this Center and other centers in 


14 


the event that the Congress decides to continue the con¬ 
servation centers either at the present capacity or at the 
reduced capacity planned by the Administration. 

The Office of Economic Opportunity in November 1968 
and the Department of the Interior in December 1968 in com¬ 
menting on our draft report agreed, in general, with our 
findings as they relate to this Center and advised us that 
actions implementing changes in program operations to cor¬ 
rect the noted weaknesses either had been taken or were 
being taken. Exception was taken by 0E0 to our recom¬ 
mendation that it consider providing low-achieving corps- 
men with opportunities to reach academic levels needed for 
successful participation in vocational programs before 
their assignment to such programs. 

We have noted, in the appropriate sections of this re¬ 
port, 0E0 and Department of the Interior comments that we 
considered appropriate to a clear understanding of the mat¬ 
ters discussed herein. An overall comment was made by 0E0 
that recognition should be given to the fact that certain 
external factors, such as staff shortages and personnel 
freezes, which were beyond its control had adversely af¬ 
fected the operation of the Job Corps Civilian Conservation 
Center program. The comments are included in their en¬ 
tirety as appendixes IV and V. 


15 



EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EIGHT CANYON CENTER'S 


TRAINING PROGRAM 

NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 

VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM 

A major deterrent to the Center's accomplishment of 
the primary Job Corps goal--training of underprivileged 
youth—has been the Center's attempt to provide vocational 
training primarily through the use of work projects that 
fit the conservation work needs of the Center. Although 
this concept is generally in accordance with Job Corps 
policy, many of the projects available at the Center ap¬ 
peared to have limited utility toward producing skills 
for marketable trades. 

The Center's overemphasis on completion of work 
projects contributed to the inability of the Center to 
provide corpsmen with the opportunity to participate in 
intensive programs of educational and vocational train¬ 
ing. Corpsmen were often assigned to these projects 
without regard to their vocational needs or desires, and 
it was not unusual for corpsmen to be excused from educa¬ 
tional classes to expedite completion of these work proj¬ 
ects without due regard to their need for educational 
training. A further indication of the emphasis placed on 
work projects was the inability of the Center to identify 
for us the vocational fields to which a significant num¬ 
ber of corpsmen were assigned at the time of our review. 

Training courses 

The goal of the Job Corps vocational program is to 
teach skills to the individual corpsmen which will aid 
them in getting, holding, and advancing in a job. Voca¬ 
tional training is provided at the Center primarily 
through work experience (on-the-job training) obtained on 
conservation or Center work projects and Center support 
activities. In addition, certain specialized vocational 
training courses not necessarily related to the work ex¬ 
perience program are offered on a limited basis. 


16 








The work experience program is designed to develop 
positive work habits and attitudes and, at the same time, 
provide corpsmen with entry level occupational skills and 
related knowledge above the helper or laborer levels. 

The work experience program has conservation work 
projects as its core to which are added a variety of Cen¬ 
ter operations and maintenance work. The specialized vo¬ 
cational training courses include training in several oc¬ 
cupational skills, such as appliance repair, business 
machine repair, and small engine repair. 

0E0 is responsible for developing the curriculum ma¬ 
terials to be used by the conservation centers in voca¬ 
tional training. The curricula, which were being devel¬ 
oped as early as August 1966 for delivery to the centers 
from September 1966 through January 1967, were to include 
lesson plans, student hand-outs and reading materials, 
and the necessary tools and equipment to fully implement 
one or more vocational training programs at each of the 
conservation centers. 

We were informed by a Center official in April 1968 
that the Job Corps headquarters had not furnished the 
Center with the necessary curriculum materials for imple¬ 
mentation of vocational training programs. As a result, 
the Center had established a variety of on-the-job train¬ 
ing programs which are listed below. 

Vocational Programs and Number of 

Corpsmen Enrolled as of May 17. 1968 


1 . 

Program 

Heavy equipment operation and maintenance 

Corpsmen 

9 

2. 

Carpentry 

15 

3. 

Automotive maintenance 

14 

4. 

Janitorial 

4 

5. 

Basic forestry 

75 

6. 

Advanced forestry 

6 

7. 

Office clerk 

3 

8. 

Warehouseman 

3 

9. 

Resident worker 

2 

10. 

Chain saw maintenance 

4 

11. 

Landscape and gardening 

0 

12. 

Recreation aid 

3 

13. 

Mall clerk 

1 

14. 

Culinary arts 

11 

15. 

Maintenance 

1 

16. 

Graphic arts 

1 

17. 

Vocational shop specialities 

3 


17 









In addition to the above, during the academic week, daily 
classes of 1-hour duration were conducted in specialized 
vocational training courses in small appliance repair, 
welding, identification of hand tools, carpentry, and 
blueprint reading. 

Our review of the above on-the-job programs showed 
that the curricula were established by various Center of¬ 
ficials primarily on the basis of the type of job tasks 
provided by the Center's conservation work projects and 
the officials' experience and judgment as to the skills 
necessary for entry into each of the occupations. 

Utility of work projects 

toward producing skills 

for marketable trades 

Our review indicated that many of the Center's work 
projects had furnished only a limited amount of the voca¬ 
tional training necessary to provide corpsmen with entry 
level occupational skills. Following is a schedule of 
work projects which were completed during calendar year 
1967 and the corpsman man-months spent on each. 

Schedule of Work Projects Completed 

in Calendar Year 1967 


Corpsman 

Proiect man-months 


1. Center maintenance 48 

2. " recreation 7 

3. " beautification 48 

4. Bureau assistance project 69 

5. Small community projects 42 

6. " conservation projects 58 

7. Center street drainage 8 

8. " sidewalks 7 

9. " maintenance shed 35 

10. " road 11 

11. Timber stand improvement 48 

12. Ceremonial grounds 52 

13. Center incinerator 4 

14. Boundary fence 108 

15. Fire fighting 25 

16. Revegetation of logged areas 58 

Total 628 


18 












A Center official informed us that about 157 of the 
169 man-months spent on three of the above projects—bu¬ 
reau assistance, small community, and revegetation of 
logged areas—consisted primarily of common labor. In ad¬ 
dition, it appears to us that such projects as timber 
stand improvements, building fences, and fire fighting 
(181 man-months) offer only limited value toward producing 
marketable skills. These six projects (338 man-months) 
accounted for 54 percent of the total 628 man-months spent 
on the work projects. 

An examination of the revegetation of logged areas 
project, which was completed in August 1967 and required 
58 corpsmen man-months, showed that essentially all the 
work performed by the corpsmen assigned to the project 
was devoted to the use of axes, pruning saws, shovels, 
and related hand tools. A review of the work performed 
by corpsmen assigned to the work experience program dur¬ 
ing the 3-month period February 12 through May 10, 1968, 
showed that about 53 percent of the total time was spent 
in basic forestry work which appeared to afford little 
skill training. 

In addition to examining the forestry activities, 
we examined into the work being performed by the 14 
corpsmen enrolled in the Center's automotive maintenance 
program. Our examination showed that a substantial 
amount of corpsmen's time was devoted to low-level train¬ 
ing. 


A total of 2,478 hours of automotive maintenance 
training was received by the 14 corpsmen since their en¬ 
rollment in the program, of which 1,554 hours, or about 63 
percent, had been spent in preventative maintenance or 
general maintenance which included such things as clean¬ 
ing and washing vehicles, oil changes and lubrication, 
tire repairs, and dispensing gasoline. Additionally, a 
total of 505 hours had been spent by three corpsmen in 
dispatching vehicles used by Center officials. According 
to the records, of the 2,478 training hours, only 186, or 
about 8 percent, had been spent on such training as en¬ 
gine repair, clutch repair, or similar work. The 


19 


remaining 233 hours constituted primarily corpsmen leader 
and instruction time. 

Although we recognize that work of the above nature 
can develop favorable work habits, we question the utility 
of such assignments toward providing corpsmen with the vo¬ 
cational training necessary for the development of entry 
level occupational skills in occupational areas above the 
helper or laborer categories. For example, although the 
experience of the corpsmen in the automotive maintenance 
program appears to qualify them for employment in a service 
station for general-type tasks, it is not clear that this 
experience provides an adequate beginning toward automo¬ 
tive maintenance careers. 

Assignment of corpsmen to 

vocational training 

The Center’s emphasis on the need for completing work 
projects had resulted in assigning many corpsmen to work 
projects without regard to their particular training needs 
or desires. 

Work program policies provided that, although corps- 
men could be rotated among the various tasks of a given 
work project to provide a variety of skill training oppor¬ 
tunities, their time be concentrated on those tasks most 
closely related to the skill-training requirement of their 
chosen vocational curriculum. 

The available records of the work experience of 
corpsmen while at the Center showed, however, that many of 
the corpsmen worked on a variety of different tasks with¬ 
out, in many instances, concentrating on those tasks most 
closely related to their chosen vocational program. For 
example, one corpsman who stated a preference for welding 
on December 4, 1967, had accumulated only 8 hours of weld¬ 
ing through May 3, 1968, while most of his time had been 
spent in forestry work using primarily an axe, pruning 
saw, and related hand tools. In another instance, a 
corpsman who chose carpentry as a vocation in November 
1967, spent 40 hours in that vocation during the period 
January 26 through May 3, 1968, and 177 hours in forestry, 
principally using an axe. 


20 




Our examination of the work being performed by corps- 
men assigned to two work projects which were in progress 
at the time of our review revealed similar conditions. 

For example, of 39 corpsmen assigned to one of the work 
projects, all but three were performing basic forestry 
work, such as using hand axes. According to the records, 
however, only five of the 39 corpsmen had chosen forestry 
as a vocational training curriculum. Of the 18 corpsmen 
assigned to the other work project which we reviewed, 16 
were also performing basic forestry tasks. According to 
the records, however, only two had chosen forestry as a 
vocational training curriculum. 

Our interviews with corpsmen further indicated that 
many of the corpsmen generally were not being assigned to 
the vocational training programs of their preference. For 
example, of the 46 corpsmen whom we interviewed, 35, or 
about 76 percent, stated that there were other jobs for 
which they preferred to train. Of the 46 corpsmen, 20 
stated that they were not sure or were not interested in 
obtaining a job in the occupation for which they were re¬ 
ceiving training. 

Center officials advised us that, in order to expe¬ 
dite completion of work projects, corpsmen were often as¬ 
signed to projects which did not provide skills training 
closely related to their chosen vocational curriculum. 
Several key officials, including the deputy director for 
work, the forester, and the vocation-education coordina¬ 
tor, stated that the overemphasis placed on work project 
production allowed too little time to properly train 
corpsmen in many of the vocational programs. 

One official stated, for example, that the work proj¬ 
ects should be abolished or at a minimum substantially re¬ 
duced to permit adequate time for training the corpsmen. 
The deputy director for work stated that the evaluation of 
the work department's activities was based primarily on 
the value of completed projects. He advised us that, in 
order to complete some of the projects within the time al¬ 
lowed, he had to utilize the best corpsmen available with 
little regard to training other corpsmen. 


21 


We were unable to make an overall determination of 
the extent to which corpsmen had changed their vocational 
training preference or the extent to which corpsmen had 
not selected programs because the Center had not main¬ 
tained complete records showing this information. However, 
Center officials stated that, because of the low educa¬ 
tional levels and maturity attained by the corpsmen, many 
had frequently changed their preference of vocational 
training and that many others had not decided what train¬ 
ing they preferred. 

These officials stated that corpsmen had not only 
walked off the job and changed their training preference 
on many occasions when instructed to perform tasks not to 
their liking, such as cleaning mud from heavy equipment or 
sweeping shop areas, but also had frequently changed their 
preference for vocational training when it became apparent 
to them that they lacked the reading and math abilities 
required to perform the more complex tasks of the skill. 

We noted that on April 17, 1968, Center officials 
could not identify the training programs to which 83 of 
the 173 corpsmen on board at that date were assigned. The 
deputy director for work advised us that these 83 corpsmen 
included either corpsmen whose preferred vocational train¬ 
ing was not known at the time or corpsmen who changed their 
preference so often that he did not know from one day to 
the next what program they were enrolled in. 

Absences from education classes 


The emphasis placed on the work program has also con¬ 
tributed to absenteeism from educational classes. In some 
instances, corpsmen were repeatedly excused from classes 
to participate in the work program although their educa¬ 
tional progress had been minimal. 

The Center followed the practice of excusing all 
classroom absences when the whereabouts of the corpsmen 
were known and had been authorized. Unexcused absences 
were reported for appropriate disciplinary action. The 
principal-teacher advised us that, although attendance 
records for unexcused absences were prepared on a daily 



basis and reported to the corpsman supervisor for disci¬ 
plinary action, the records were not retained. Because of 
this, we requested that records of all absences during 
parts of April and May 1968 be retained for our review. 

Our examination of these records showed that, during 
a 2-week period in April 1968, the period for which these 
records were retained, unexcused absences from educational 
classes amounted to about 4 percent of the total class 
time. Records showing excused absences during the period 
April 22 through May 17, 1968, indicated that such ab¬ 
sences amounted to approximately 28 percent of the total 
class time. 

Our review further showed that several corpsmen had 
been excused from educational classes on many occasions 
although their progress in the education program had been 
minimal. We noted that, although most of the 176 corpsmen 
who had been enrolled in the reading program as of May 2, 
1968, had recorded some initial gains in their reading 
skills, 13 of the 176 had made no progress during the 
6-month period prior to May 2, 1968, including five who 
showed no improvement in more than 10 months. In several 
of these cases, the corpsmen had been repeatedly absent 
from classes. 

Although we were unable to determine the overall ex¬ 
tent of these absences due to the lack of records and re¬ 
ports reflecting this information, our discussions with 
Center officials indicated that the temporary reassignment 
of several corpsmen from educational classes to the Cen¬ 
ter’s work program was not unusual, especially toward the 
end of the fiscal year when completion of the work proj¬ 
ects in progress had to be expedited. We noted that sev¬ 
eral corpsmen, who had recorded little improvement in 
their reading skills, had been frequently excused from 
classes on a temporary basis for such purposes as driving 
vehicles or operating certain equipment needed on work 
projects. Also two corpsmen whose progress in education 
had been minimal were permanently excused from attending 
educational classes. 


23 





One of these corpsmen entered in reading program in 
milestone^ two on June 22, 1967, and reached milestone 
four of the beginning reading program on September 19, 

1967. He made no further progress through May 2, 1968, 
the date of our review, because he had been excused from 
attending classes during the 7-month period. The 
principal-teacher advised us that this corpsman had been 
excused from attending all educational classes since Sep¬ 
tember 25, 1967, because he stated that he did not want to 
attend those classes and that, if he was not excused from 
them and allowed to devote his time entirely to the work 
program, he would resign from the Job Corps. 

In a similar instance, another corpsman entered the 
reading program on August 11, 1967, at milestone 10 and 
reached milestone 12, about grade 5.5, on October 6, 1967. 
He made no further progress from October 6, 1967, to 
May 2, 1968. The principal-teacher also informed us that 
this corpsman had not attended classes since February 15, 

1968, because he had been permanently reassigned to the 
work program. 


Milestones (16 in the basic reading program and 13 in the 
math program) are used by 0E0 to record the progress of 
corpsmen. A progress point on which promotions and pay 
raises are based is awarded for each milestone attained. 

A reading milestone is generally equivalent to about half 
of a traditional grade level. 


24 



length of certain vocational training programs 


Our review showed that successful completion of the 
Center’s vocational training programs would not only re¬ 
quire substantially longer than the length of stay of many 
of the corpsmen but would, in some instances, require more 
time than could be devoted to such training during the full 
2-year residency authorized by the Economic Opportunity 
Act. 


During the first 30 days of a corpsman's residency at 
the Center, his vocational training consisted primarily of 
orientation and exposure to the various on-the-job training 
programs available. During this period, vocational train¬ 
ing consisted primarily of work assignments in the basic 
forestry program for familiarization with the work program 
and for instruction in tool use and safety. 

Upon completion of this orientation period, corpsmen 
should have been assigned to an on-the-job training program 
of their choice. However, some corpsmen were not assigned 
to their preferred training program for as long as 4 or 
5 months after their arrival at the Center for such reasons 
as the lack of work projects providing the desired training 
tasks and the overenrollment of corpsmen in the preferred 
program. 

Approximately 47 percent of the corpsmen who entered 
the Center during calendar year 1967 terminated in less 
than 90 days after their arrival. It is evident, there¬ 
fore, that, based on the 30-day vocational orientation of 
incoming corpsmen together with the weekly rotation of 
corpsmen between the education and work programs, the maxi¬ 
mum vocational training which those corpsmen could have re¬ 
ceived was limited to about 30 days in addition to the es¬ 
sential orientation program. Also,because of delays in as¬ 
signments, some corpsmen terminating within 90 days of 
their arrival at the Center could receive no specific vo¬ 
cational training, other than in basic forestry. 

In addition, an examination of three of the vocational 
training programs, which included about two thirds of the 


25 




corpsmen enrolled in all the on-the-job programs on May 17, 
1968, showed that, although a corpsman could devote about 
1,768 hours--excluding illness, home leave, and other ab¬ 
sences-- to vocational training during a 2-year residency 
at the Center, successful completion of those programs 
would require 2,000 to 2,848 hours. The programs we re¬ 
viewed and the time required to complete them are listed 
below. 



Maximum hours 

Hours required 

Program 

for training 

for completion 

1. Auto maintenance 

1,768 

2,689 

2. Basic forestry 

1,768 

2,848 

3. Carpentry 

1,768 

2,000 


Our determination of the hours to complete the above 
programs was based on discussions with responsible Center 
officials. These officials advised us that the hours re¬ 
quired to complete the programs were determined on the ba¬ 
sis of the training which they believed was necessary to 
obtain entry level employment in each of the occupations. 

The Center director advised us that he was not aware 
that on-the-job training programs such as those discussed 
above required more time for completion than was available 
for such training. He stated, however, that the programs 
were an integral part of the Center's work projects program 
and provided work experience for the corpsmen in developing 
good work habits and attitudes. 

Records showing the number of corpsmen who had suc¬ 
cessfully completed the vocational training programs at the 
Center were not generally available. However, a respon¬ 
sible Center official advised us that few corpsmen had com¬ 
pleted any of the Center's programs with sufficient knowl¬ 
edge and job skills to obtain and hold a job at the entry 
level of the occupation above the helper or laborer cate¬ 
gories . 


26 





Evaluations of Center's 

programs by OEQ 


Evaluations by 0E0 have been critical of the Center's 
emphasis on completion of work projects. A report dated 
August 8, 1967, on an 0E0 evaluation contained the follow¬ 
ing comments: 

"*** The Work Department has a plan on paper 
for assigning Corpsmen to projects based on the 
individual Corpsman's needs, capabilities and 
desires for skills and training. In many cases, 
they are not operating according to this plan. 

Some of the factors interfering with this 
planned assignment of Corpsmen are: (1) high 
rate of Corpsmen turnover, (2) rigid completion 
deadlines for work projects, (3) demand for the 
few Corpsmen leaders and drivers, and (4) poor 
planning by the Work Department. ***" 

k k k k k 

"kkk The Work Program presently appears to be 
a work production oriented program being car¬ 
ried out as a separate operation. ***" 

A report dated February 16, 1968, on a later evalua¬ 
tion by 0E0 included the following comment: 

"kkk Scheduling of Corpsmen to work projects 
has been based more on work program needs, 
with not enough emphasis and attention given 
to developing and implementing a good, 
planned scheduling system based on Corpsmen 
desires, capabilities, and needs ***." 

In reply to the August 8, 1967, report, the Center 
disagreed in part and stated that in its opinion the 
failure of some corpsmen to receive training in accordance 
with their individual plans was the result of a constant 
need to adjust the corpsman's program to conform with his 


27 







demonstrated aptitude and limitation. Nevertheless, cer¬ 
tain actions were taken to improve the program, which in¬ 
cluded the appointment of a vocational coordinator and de¬ 
velopment of lesson plans. 

In reply to the February 16, 1968, report, the Center 
stated that emphasis was now being placed on the instruc¬ 
tion of corpsmen. 

Changes required by agency Task Force Report 

Job Corps and the Departments of Agriculture and the 
Interior recognized that weaknesses and deficiencies ex¬ 
isted in the training of corpsmen at conservation centers 
and through a joint effort considered means for improve¬ 
ment. On May 2, 1968, a Civilian Conservation Centers 
Program Task Force Report was issued, which contained a 
number of new program concepts and policies as a basis for 
operation of the centers. Implementation of the program 
changes, priorities, and policies contained in the report 
was to be accomplished by June 30, 1968. With respect to 
vocational training the report states: 

"The goal of the vocational program is to 
teach skills to the individual corpsman which 
will directly aid them in placement and en¬ 
hance his ability and advance in a job. The 
major emphasis is to teach vocational skills 
which are directly related to the work pro¬ 
gram of the individual center. Specialized 
vocational training not related to work proj¬ 
ects or center operation assignments, can be 
implemented with the prior approval of the 
responsible Department and the Associate Di¬ 
rector, Civilian Conservation Centers." 

k k k k k 

"The vocational training program will receive 
major emphasis by the cooperative efforts of 
the Departments and Job Corps to strengthen 
the program. 


28 



"In addition to the regular vocational program 
and certain approved specialized vocational 
programs, such as the small appliance repair 
courses, several additional advanced voca¬ 
tional training programs will be implemented 
in existing centers. These programs will be 
similar to the heavy equipment program at the 
Jacobs Creek Center. They will cover ad¬ 
vanced training in Heavy Equipment, Carpentry, 

GED [a high school equivalency program] and 
training for government service including en¬ 
trance into military service." 

The report states also that the main thrust of the 
training program will be toward occupational areas above 
the helper or laborer category. In keeping with this de¬ 
cision, Job Corps issued training standards detailing the 
minimum proficiency attainments required in the occupa¬ 
tional areas of (1) automotive service mechanic, (2) con¬ 
struction carpenter, (3) cook, (4) heavy equipment opera¬ 
tor, (5) masonry, and (6) welding. Also, since these 
training programs were to be established within the context 
of the goals of the conservation centers' work projects 
programs, Job Corps, in August 1968, issued a Work- 
Vocational Training Manual. The purpose of this manual is 
to assist the centers by providing procedures and guide¬ 
lines to (1) analyze work projects for their training op¬ 
portunities, (2) plan and implement the training, and 
(3) evaluate the accomplishments of training. 

Conclusions and agency comments 

On the basis of our review, we believe that a major 
deterrent to the Center's accomplishment of the primary 
Job Corps goal--training of underprivileged youth--has been 
the Center's attempt to provide vocational training primar¬ 
ily through the use of work projects that fit the conser¬ 
vation work needs of the Center. Although this concept is 
generally in accordance with Job Corps policy, we found 
that, due to the nature of work available at the Center, 
many of the projects appeared to have limited utility to¬ 
ward producing skills for marketable trades. Consequently, 


29 




it does not appear to us that the use of work projects as 
the primary vehicle for providing vocational training 
would permit the Center to establish and operate an ef¬ 
fective and intensive vocational training program as con¬ 
templated in the act. 

We found also that the Center's overemphasis on com¬ 
pletion of work projects contributed to the inability of 
the Center to provide corpsmen with the opportunity to 
participate in intensive programs of educational and voca¬ 
tional training, that corpsmen were often assigned to 
these projects without regard to their vocational needs or 
desires, and that it was not unusual for corpsmen to be 
excused from educational classes to expedite completion of 
these work projects without due regard to their need for 
educational training. 

The criteria established in the May 1968 Task Force 
Report and supporting issuances appear to represent worth¬ 
while improvements in policies and concepts for providing 
vocational training at conservation centers. 

Our perusal of the various occupational standards is¬ 
sued by Job Corps indicates, however, that, in order to 
accomplish the minimum requirements for program completion 
in these occupational areas, corpsmen will need an oppor¬ 
tunity to take part in intensive classroom and work- 
experience programs directed specifically toward develop¬ 
ment of the knowledge and technical skills needed beyond 
the helper and laborer category. It appears to us that 
the work projects available at the Eight Canyon Center, 
calling for significant amounts of work in the helper and 
laborer category, represent a serious impairment to the 
potential for providing the intensive vocational training 
envisioned in the Task Force Report. 

We recognize the value of conservation work in itself 
and the value of the conservation work projects toward de¬ 
veloping good work habits in corpsmen. However, to pro¬ 
vide programs of maximum benefit to the corpsmen, we be¬ 
lieve that it is necessary to emphasize intensive voca¬ 
tional programs directed specifically toward development 


30 


of marketable skills in corpsmen through intensive class¬ 
room training and related work experience and possibly 
through the development of work projects which are spe¬ 
cifically attuned to the development of vocational skills. 

Accordingly, we proposed that the Job Corps and the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs institute specialized vocational 
training programs at the Center which are directed spe¬ 
cifically toward the development of knowledge and skills 
necessary for occupational areas beyond the helper and 
laborer categories. We agreed with the concept of the 
Task Force Report that work projects be closely attuned 
to developing such knowledge and skills; however, where 
work projects cannot provide such necessary training, we 
proposed that they be included in the corpsman's curricu¬ 
lum only to the extent needed to develop good work habits 
and that major emphasis be placed on intensive vocational 
training which would provide a corpsman with skills that 
would aid him in job placement and in enhancing his abil¬ 
ity and advancement in a job. 

In commenting on our findings and proposals by letter 
dated November 5, 1968, (see app. IV) the Acting Director, 
0E0, stated, in part, that: 

'•The need for a total restructuring of the Eight 
Canyon Work program to provide for the proper im¬ 
plementation and distribution of skills training 
has been recognized and is being accomplished. 

The emphasis placed on work accomplishments at 
any center at the expense of the corpsmen's edu¬ 
cation is inexcusable and will not be tolerated 
within the Job Corps program. 

"The Eight Canyon Center, which has been beset 
with operational problems on numerous occasions, 
is not representative of the Job Corps Civilian 
Conservation Centers program. 

"The Vocational Training Program, like many 
other aspects of the total program, is being 
adversely affected by external factors which 
are beyond the control of the Center. 


31 




"This Center, along with the other seventy-four 
federally-operated centers, has been consis¬ 
tently hampered because of staff shortages, 
personnel freezes imposed by the Congress, Bu¬ 
reau of the Budget, etc. These staffing prob¬ 
lems have seriously restricted the effectiveness 
of the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers 
program. Project planning and implementation 
have also been seriously hampered by the delay 
of congressional appropriations and internal 
dissemination of funds. These factors, along 
with all of the other external pressures con¬ 
nected to a new program such as this, must be 
recognized as contributing to the program de¬ 
ficiencies . 

"The recommendation to supplement the work pro¬ 
gram with specialized vocational training at 
this Center raises some additional questions. 

We have ample evidence that work projects will 
provide the necessary skills training to assure 
the employability of the corpsmembers. The 
weakness at this Center was not the lack of 
availability of the right type of project, but 
rather one of failing to adequately plan the 
work program to provide for skills training. 

When proper work experience projects are avail¬ 
able, specialized vocational programs should 
be utilized only to the extent necessary to 
cover climatic or geographic problems. In 
short, the work projects are to be planned to 
produce corpsmen skills rather than work ac¬ 
complishment. This does not diminish the need 
to benefit the natural resources as a by-product 
of our primary mission." 

The Director of Survey and Review, Department of the 
Interior, advised us by letter dated December 11, 1968 
(see app. V), that the Job Corps Work-Vocational Training 
Program Manual was issued in August 1968 to comply with 
the Task Force Report recommendation that conservation 
centers provide corpsmen with vocational training intended 
to directly aid them in obtaining jobs and in enhancing 


32 


their ability to earn advancement when employed. The Di¬ 
rector advised us also that this policy change was in the 
process of being implemented in all Interior Job Corps 
conservation centers and that such implementation was on 
schedule. 

Further, the Director stated that this change in 
concept would provide a dual role for the Job Corps con¬ 
servation centers by providing on-the-job training oppor¬ 
tunities for disadvantaged youths in actual work activi¬ 
ties which are directed toward conserving and developing 
the natural resources and recreational areas of the Nation 
as well as classroom-oriented vocational training for ap¬ 
prentice or tradesman fields in the laboring forces when 
they leave the program. 

We agree that recognition should be given to the fact 
that there have been certain external factors beyond the 
control of 0E0 which have adversely affected the operation 
of the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers program. 

The degree to which the program deficiencies can be at¬ 
tributed to these external factors is not fully quantifi¬ 
able; however, with respect to the Eight Canyon Center, 
we believe that the deficiencies noted are primarily at¬ 
tributable to management weaknesses. 

Although we believe that the actions taken by the 
agencies represent worthwhile improvements in policies and 
concepts for providing vocational training at conservation 
centers, it appears that the policy of utilizing the con¬ 
servation work projects as the primary vehicle for teach¬ 
ing vocational training will remain in effect. Therefore, 
since our reviews at this Center and other conservation 
centers have resulted in serious questions as to efficacy 
of this method, we have considerable doubt that the ac¬ 
tions taken by the agencies can be sufficiently responsive 
to these questions as to warrant continuance of the Job 
Corps conservation center program at its present level. 

Recommendation to the Director of QEO 

If the Congress decides to continue the conservation 
centers either at present capacity or at the reduced 
capacity planned by the Administration, we recommend that 


33 






OEO, in consonance with other Government agencies having 
cognizance for the operations of conservation centers, re¬ 
examine the current policy of providing training primarily 
through conservation work projects with a view toward 
taking such actions as may be required to develop a voca¬ 
tional training program which will permit corpsmen to 
develop skills needed for worthwhile employment in occu¬ 
pations above the helper or laborer category. 


34 


NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 

ACADEMIC TRAINING PROGRAM 


There has been a lack of emphasis on the academic 
training program at the Center which has reduced the op¬ 
portunity for corpsmen to achieve their maximum academic 
potential. In commenting on the emphasis placed on com¬ 
pletion of work projects (see pp. 22 to 24), we discussed 
the consequent effect this emphasis had on academic class 

absences by corpsmen. We also found evidence of excessive 
class absences by instructors. 

Another factor which appeared to limit the opportunity 
ror corpsmen to obtain the maximum benefit from Center 
training was the Center's practice of assigning corpsmen 
to on-the-job vocational training programs in instances 
where they had not yet achieved the level of education 

presumed to be needed to successfully participate in such 
programs. 

Enrollee academic progress 

The objective of the basic education program,as 
stated in the Civilian Conservation Center Manual, was to 
raise each individual to a level of skill in those areas 
necessary for most forms of employment. The minimal 
goal was to raise the corpsmen to about a seventh grade 
level. In addition, as many corpsmen as possible were to 
be encouraged to participate in the General Education 
Development Testing Program (a high school equivalency 
program). 

Basic education primarily comprises four programs-- 
reading, mathematics, language and study skills, and the 
world of work. The Job Corps utilizes the program method 
of instruction as it allows each corpsman to begin at his 
own level and to proceed at his own pace. Additional 
educational programs include instruction in health, driver 
education, the academic aspects of vocational training, 
and recreation and physical education. 

To review the enrollee progress made in the basic 
education program, we selected the reading program for 


35 





detailed review. The reading program is divided into 
three major segments--beginning, graded, and advanced. 

Each corpsman is assigned to one of these segments ac¬ 
cording to his reading skill as measured by placement 
tests. Although the Center retained certain records 
showing the reading progress of terminated corpsmen, in 
many instances the data was incomplete and would not per¬ 
mit a determination of the progress made by those corps- 
men. In view of this situation, we selected all corpsmen 
on board at the Center on May 2, 1968, who were enrolled 
in the reading program at this date (176 corpsmen), and 
reviewed their progress from their entry into the reading 
program. 

Our review showed that 111, or about 63 percent, of 
the corpsmen entered the reading program at the beginning 
level, equivalent to a traditional grade of three or less. 
Of the 176 corpsmen, only 17, or about 10 percent, entered 
the program with skills equivalent to a traditional grade 
of five or above. 

An analysis of the reading progress made by the 176 
corpsmen as of May 2, 1968, showed that most of the prog¬ 
ress was recorded by corpsmen who had been at the Center 
for 6 months or longer. For example, at the time of our 
field review, 46 of the 176 corpsmen had been in the read¬ 
ing program 90 days or less and over half (24) of those 
corpsmen had made no progress in their reading skills. 

The 22 remaining corpsmen had, in most cases, made gains 
of about one or two milestones. Of 64 corpsmen who had 
been in the reading program from 6 months to 1 year at 
the time of our field review, 61 had improved their read¬ 
ing skills by an average of about five milestones, includ¬ 
ing 14 corpsmen whose improvement reportedly ranged from 
eight to 14 milestones. 

At the time the 176 corpsmen entered the program, 
their average traditional reading level was about the 
second grade. At the time of our field review, the 176 
corpsmen had advanced to an average grade of about 3.5. 
Seven of the corpsmen had attained a reading level of 
grade 7 or above, the Job Corps objective for this area 
of training. 


36 


The 1967 amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act 
state that Job Corps centers shall, to the extent fea¬ 
sible, provide opportunities for qualified enrollees to 
obtain the equivalent of a certificate of high school 
graduation. Center officials advised us that, prior to 
February 1968, the Center did not have an active program 
for this training primarily because of the lack of quali¬ 
fied enrollees. These officials stated, however, that 
the Center established a program in February 1968 and 
corpsmen who had attained a Job Corps grade reading level 
of seven, completed the basic mathematics program, and 
attained a score on the Stanford Achievement Tests which 
indicated an education level sufficient to undertake the 
necessary training were accepted into the program. Eight 
corpsmen were enrolled in the program at the time of our 
field review. 

On the basis of an experimental program that was 
field tested at six Job Corps centers, 0E0, on April 1, 
1968, issued a revised curriculum and established minimum 
requirements for entering the program in order to limit 
it to those corpsmen likely to benefit. For acceptance 
into the program, a corpsman, as a minimum, must have 
(1) satisfactorily completed the Job Corps basic educa¬ 
tion program, (2) expressed the desire and willingness to 
participate in the program, and (3) achieved average 
reading and mathematics scores of 6.0 on the advanced 
battery of the Stanford Achievement Test. 

Our review of the qualifications of the eight corps- 
men enrolled in the Center's high school equivalency pro¬ 
gram on April 9, 1968, showed that none of the corpsmen 
met the minimum requirements instituted by 0E0 on 
April 1, 1968. The principal-teacher at the Center ad¬ 
vised us that, in view of these requirements, the train¬ 
ing of the eight corpsmen would be discontinued pending 
improvement of their educational levels to the minimums 
suggested for successful completion of the program. 

Absenteeism 


A significant indication of the low emphasis placed 
on academic training was the evidence of excessive 


37 



absences on the part of both corpsmen and instructors 
from classes and of low levels of attention during class 
sessions. Center records were not adequate to fully de¬ 
termine the extent of corpsmen absences; however, for a 
test period during our review, we found that corpsmen 
absences amounted to about 32 percent of class time-- 
4 percent which had not been excused and 28 percent which 
had the approval of the Center. As discussed on pages 
22 to 24, it appeared to be the policy of the Center to 
excuse corpsmen to work on conservation projects. 

During our site review we also noted on numerous 
occasions that varying numbers of corpsmen assigned to 
educational classes spent a certain amount of their 
time asleep with their heads on the desks. In some in¬ 
stances, the classes were attended or supervised by the 
instructors; however, in other instances, the classes 
were unattended. Therefore, we examined into the extent 
to which classes were generally unattended by instruc¬ 
tors for a 2-week period during April 1968. 

About 35 percent of the class hours scheduled during 
that period were not attended or supervised by instruc¬ 
tors because the instructors were engaged in other activ- 
ities--such as printing the Center's newspaper, attending 
required meetings, administering tests--or were on annual 
or sick leave. In one instance, an instructor scheduled 
to teach seven classes of reading and math per day had 
not attended a class in about 4 weeks because he had been 
assigned the responsibility of administering Stanford 
Achievement Tests to the corpsmen. 

The Center director advised us that it was common 
for 30 percent or more of the combined instructor time to 
be absorbed in detail assignments outside the classroom 
because of the lack of sufficient staff to perform those 
duties. 

Rotation of corpsmen with low academic levels 

between education and work experience programs 

Job Corps' policy of rotating corpsmen between educa¬ 
tion and work experience programs may prevent some 


38 




corpsmen from successfully undertaking vocational train- 
ing, because their academic achievement levels are inade¬ 
quate upon their arrival at the Center for successful 
participation in many of the on-the-job training pro¬ 
grams . 

Job Corps policies required the conservation centers 
to equally divide corpsmen time between education and 
work experience programs. The policies provided that at 
200-man centers, such as the Eight Canyon Center, 85 per¬ 
cent of the gross corpsman time be so divided and the re¬ 
maining 15 percent be absorbed by Center operations, such 
as kitchen and dormitory duties. The Center carried out 
this policy by assigning the corpsmen to the education 
and work experience programs on an alternating week ba¬ 
sis . 


Job Corps has recognized that academic levels equiv¬ 
alent to traditional grade five or above are necessary to 
obtain benefit from vocational training. The Chief, Job 
Corps Curriculum Development Branch, advised us that Job 
Corps had found that the experience of various vocational 
training institutions showed the necessity for this edu¬ 
cational equivalency in order to obtain profitable voca¬ 
tional training. 0E0 has published a Job Corps handbook 
which prescribes the required level of academic training 
for entry into the vocational courses at all men's urban 
centers. 0E0 noted, however, that at times it would be 
appropriate for the urban centers to waive the require¬ 
ments, subject to approval by 0E0. 

The entry requirements prescribed in the handbook 
for educational eligibility criteria were considerably 
higher than the levels attained by the majority of the 
corpsmen included in our sample at the Eight Canyon 
Center. 

For example, although the handbook prescribed read¬ 
ing skills equivalent to grade five and above for entry 
into many of the vocational courses which were similar in 
title to the on-the-job programs offered at the Eight 
Canyon Center, our review of the reading levels of all 
corpsmen on board at the Center on May 2, 1968, showed 


39 




that only 17 corpsmen, or about 10 percent, had entered 
the Center with reading skills equivalent to a tradi¬ 
tional grade of five or above. Moreover, 111 of the 
corpsmen, about 63 percent, had entered the Center at 
reading levels equivalent to a traditional grade of three 
or less. According to 0E0, corpsmen with reading skills 
equivalent to grade three or less are functionally illit¬ 
erate . 

We were advised by a Center official that, because of 
the generally low educational levels attained by incoming 
corpsmen, minimum educational levels had not been required 
for entry into most of the on-the-job training programs 
at the Center. This official advised us further that 
minimum educational levels were established when the Cen¬ 
ter was activated in March 1966 but that such require¬ 
ments were abandoned prior to July 1966 when it became 
apparent that most of the incoming corpsmen could not 
qualify for many of the training programs. 


The Task Force Report on May 2, 1968, reemphasizes 
the need for a quality educational program at conserva¬ 
tion centers and establishes minimum requirements for 
program completion. These requirements include comple¬ 
tion of: milestone 14 in reading (grade equivalent 6.5), 
the basic mathematics program (equivalent to about a 
seventh grade level), the world of work course, and the 
language and study skills course through area 5. 

Conclusions 


Considering the academic levels of corpsmen upon ar¬ 
rival at the Center and the subsequent gains attained, it 
does not appear reasonable to expect that the corpsmen 
could achieve necessary educational improvements under 
the conditions which existed at the Center. 

On May 2, 1968, Job Corps, through the Task Force 
Report, established new policies and concepts for the op¬ 
eration of conservation centers including minimum re¬ 
quirements for graduation which we believe cannot 


40 



generally be met by Center corpsmen under existing condi¬ 
tions. For example, educational levels equal to about 
grade 6.5 are now necessary for satisfactory completion 
of the Job Corps program. We believe that, in order for 
corpsmen to meet this requirement, the Center must de¬ 
velop practices and procedures which will effectively 
minimize the absences of corpsmen from academic classes 
and ensure the operation of orderly classes presided over 
by qualified instructors. 

We believe also that 0E0 should examine methods of 
providing corpsmen with required academic training prior 
to their assignment to vocational training. One method 
of accomplishing this would be to require those corpsmen 
who have low academic level to attend daily educational 
classes uninterrupted by rotation to the work program un¬ 
til their academic levels have reached the minimum neces¬ 
sary for profitable vocational training. 

It may be argued that some of the youths entering 
the Job Corps program have already rejected a straight 
academic program. However, considering the retention 
rate at the Center wherein about 70 percent of the corps- 
men remained less than 6 months during calendar year 1967, 
experimentation in this area would not appear to repre¬ 
sent a significant risk of adversely affecting the drop¬ 
out rate. Also, since the basic objective of the Job 
Corps program is to prepare youths for productive employ¬ 
ment and responsible citizenship, an intensified program 
of basic education is necessary in order for the youths 
to successfully undertake vocational training. 

The development of an imaginative, intensive aca¬ 
demic program to prepare youths for later vocational 
training would also appear to be in keeping with the leg¬ 
islative provision that Job Corps contribute "to the de¬ 
velopment and dissemination of techniques for working 
with the disadvantaged that can be widely utilized by 
public and private institutions and agencies." 

Recommendations to the Director of 0E0 

In order that corpsmen may have the opportunity to 
realize their maximum academic potential, we recommend 


41 





that OEO require that the director of the Eight Canyon 
Center place greater emphasis on this aspect of the 
corpsmen’s training by establishing procedures and prac¬ 
tices which will minimize class absences by both corps- 
men and instructors and provide for more intensive train¬ 
ing during classes. 

Also, in order that corpsmen may.receive maximum op¬ 
portunity to benefit from vocational training, we recom¬ 
mend that OEO consider appropriate methods for providing 
low-achieving corpsmen with opportunities to reach aca¬ 
demic levels needed for successful participation in voca¬ 
tional training programs before their assignment to such 
programs. 


The Director of Survey and Review, Department of the 
Interior, advised us of a number of specific actions 
taken by the Eight Canyon Center in an effort to reduce 
class absences by corpsmen and instructors. (Seeapp. V.) 
We believe that the actions taken should, if adequately 
implemented, significantly reduce the rate of corpsman 
and instructor absences at the Center. 

Regarding our proposal for providing low-achieving 
corpsmen with opportunities to reach academic levels 
needed for successful participation in the vocational 
training program, the Director of Survey and Review 
stated that: 

"*** mandatory requirements for corpsmen’s edu¬ 
cation scheduling and program completion have 
been instituted. The reading program is being 
emphasized with all low-achieving corpsmen sched¬ 
uled for two hours of reading per day during the 
education week and one hour of reading per day 
during the work week. Additionally, a new corps- 
man entering a conservation center is processed 
through a 30-90 day orientation period wherein 
his academic level, physical ability, behavioral 
pattern, etc., is determined. Based upon the 
orientation period determinations, the corps- 
man’s preferences, and the work projects avail¬ 
able, he is assigned to a particular vocational 


42 


program where it can be reasonably expected that 
such training will be productive.” 

In commenting on this matter the Acting Director, 
0E0, stated that: 

"Again, this recommendation should be related to 
staffing problems and give full consideration to 
the fact that the corpsmen have previously failed 
in a total academic situation. These young men 
do not have the attention span needed for intensi¬ 
fied education. The balance between work experi¬ 
ence and education has a favorable effect. 

"The recommendation to improve the education pro¬ 
gram would implement a system that would keep a 
corpsman in a basic education system until his 
educational level reached a prescribed base be¬ 
fore he would be allowed to participate in the 
vocational training program. This could well 
mean disaster to the Civil Conservation Centers 
program, as the primary interest of most corps- 
men is to acquire job skills as well as educa¬ 
tional advancement. The two are locked together 
hand and glove. Admittedly, the corpsman*s 
dreams and aspirations cannot be quickly met, 
nor can he be started above the simple tasks of 
learning to use simple hand tools. A corpsman 
must start his academic training and vocational 
training at about the same time as a means of 
maintaining interest and to give him a sense of 
accomplishment. The assignment of a corpsman 
to menial tasks for an extended period of time 
discourages the corpsman and we frequently lose 
him. The key lies in the assignment of progres¬ 
sively greater challenge in skills training and 
responsibility as he masters the basics. Con¬ 
ducting a basic education program in isolation 
from the work program would, in our opinion, 
produce negative results. 

"Each corpsman has individual problems that must 
be dealt with, sometimes in innovative ways. We 


43 


must allow the freedom to exercise options with 
individuals and support this to a maximum 
through individual goal setting and use of the 
Training Standards." 

We recognize that there may be problems associated 
with the implementation of our proposal; however, we do 
not agree that it would spell disaster to the Civilian 
Conservation Centers program. On the contrary, we be¬ 
lieve that it could help to strengthen it. 

For example, during our review of the Atterbury Job 
Corps Center, we were informed that certain changes had 
been made in the general education program because a lack 
of interest and motivation in the program was recognized 
as a contributor to the nongraduate termination problem. 
In a document provided us by the Center director of the 
Atterbury Center it was stated that: 

"A Pre-Vocational program was initiated. Our 
studies showed that many Corpsmen, whose enter¬ 
ing reading level was less than the 4.0 grade, 
were falling behind, losing interest, and drop¬ 
ping out of our program prior to course comple¬ 
tion due to this lack of reading comprehension. 

Since the curricula in all of our vocational 
courses is geared to a 4.0 reading level or 
above, these Corpsmen had extreme problems in 
comprehending written work sheets and job sheets 
in the shop. Because of this difficulty, they 
became discouraged, lost interest and left the 
Center. 

"The Pre-Vocational program is aimed at rapid 
development of an enrollee's reading skills to 
above the 4.0 level so he may compete effectively 
in the mainstream of our training program. Be¬ 
ginning in October 1967, all entering enrollees 
with reading levels below 4.0 were assigned to 
the Pre-Vocational program. Some 21% of the 
entering enrollees are in this category. The 
Pre-Vocational program has made a strong 


44 


contribution to reducing the non-graduate termi¬ 
nations at the Center." 

We believe that the implementation of this program 
at the Atterbury Center, which has been in effect for 
over a year, affords 0E0 an opportunity to analyze its 
success with a view toward implementing a similar program 
at conservation centers. The value of such a program at 
conservation centers seems to be increased as the con¬ 
servation centers receive more corpsmen with higher 
achievement levels under the revised assignment proce¬ 
dures adopted in November 1968. (See p. 8.) 


45 


NEED TO IMPROVE COUNSELING PROGRAM 


The counseling program carried on at the Center had 
not been conducted on a regularly scheduled basis, rec¬ 
ords of counseling sessions had not been maintained, and 
the corpsman advisory system, for the most part, had not 
been effective. 

Two professionally trained counselors are assigned 
to the Center and are responsible for testing, individual 
and group counseling, coordination of the corpsman advi¬ 
sory system, and initiating placement and graduation pro¬ 
cedures for each corpsman. Under the corpsman advisory 
system, each corpsman is assigned a staff advisor who is 
responsible, in part, for helping him choose a specific 
training goal and for monitoring his progress in educa¬ 
tion, personal development, and work performance through 
regularly scheduled meetings. 

Professional counseling 

The counselors at the Center are responsible for 
planning, developing, and implementing a professional 
counseling program to include continuing vocational, edu¬ 
cational, and social adjustment counseling for all corps- 
men. Section 101 of the Economic Opportunity Act, as 
amended, provides that a program of intensive counseling 
be carried on at the Job Corps centers. 

The supervisory counselor at the Center advised us, 
however, that, because of time limitations, regularly 
scheduled interviews with individual corpsmen had not 
been held. He stated that most of the individual coun¬ 
seling was the result of referrals by other staff members 
or instances where corpsmen came to the counselors with 
particular problems. Of the 46 corpsmen we interviewed, 
37 stated that they could obtain counseling whenever they 
wanted it. This official advised us also that his par¬ 
ticipation in group counseling was limited to discussions 
with new corpsmen upon their arrival at the Center and 
again approximately 30 days thereafter. 


46 




Our review of the individual corpsmen's files showed 
that records of counseling sessions generally had not 
been maintained. We reviewed the personnel files of all 
corpsmen on board at May 20, 1968 (193 corpsmen), and 
noted that counseling records had been prepared in only 
nine instances. In each of these instances, the discus¬ 
sions were concerned primarily with the corpsman's desire 
to return home. In this regard, the principal-teacher 
advised us that corpsmen had been referred to counseling 
at various times because of their lack of educational 
progress and uncooperative attitudes. This official 
stated, however, that he had not been routinely informed 
of the results of the counseling sessions nor had he been 
provided with a recommended course of action to improve 
the progress of the corpsmen involved. 

The supervisory counselor stated that he did not 
keep records of individual counseling sessions because he 
did not believe that they were necessary. He stated fur¬ 
ther that records of group counseling were not kept be¬ 
cause, in his opinion, about 90 percent of the discussion 
carried on in those sessions was irrelevant. He stated 
that his assistant occasionally prepared records of indi¬ 
vidual corpsmen interviews. 

Corpsman advisory system 

The management and operation of the corpsman advi¬ 
sory system is the responsibility of the corpsman advisor 
coordinator, who is also the supervisory counselor, and 
the individual corpsman advisors. The corpsman advisor 
coordinator is responsible for the overall administration 
of the system, including selection of the staff advisors, 
assignment of new enrollees to the advisors, and orienta¬ 
tion and training of each advisor. 

Corpsman advisors are drawn on a voluntary basis 
from the Center staff of resident workers, cooks, mainte¬ 
nance personnel, instructors, work leaders, and adminis¬ 
trative clerks. At the time of his appointment, each ad¬ 
visor is furnished with a handbook explaining the corps- 
man advisory system. Their duties as advisors include 
helping new enrollees define their vocational and 


47 



occupational goals, explaining the Center's system of pay 
and promotions, monitoring the corpsman's overall prog¬ 
ress at the Center, awarding promotion certificates, and 
preparing placement portfolios for each corpsman. These 
duties were being carried out at the Center primarily by 
means of regularly scheduled biweekly meetings with the 
corpsmen. 

At the time of our field review, the Center had as¬ 
signed all corpsmen on board to 24 corpsman advisors. We 
interviewed 12 of the 24 advisors concerning their func¬ 
tions and responsibilities as advisors to the corpsmen 
assigned to them. Following is a summary of some of the 
responses we received from the 12 corpsman advisors whom 
we interviewed: 

1. Six of the 12 interviewed had not received in¬ 
struction on how to implement the corpsman advi¬ 
sory system. 

2. Five advisors did not help new enrollees choose 
their vocational goals. One of these advisors 
did not help the corpsmen choose vocational goals 
because he was not aware of the Center's criteria 
for allowing corpsmen to enter particular voca¬ 
tional programs. Of the 46 corpsmen whom we in¬ 
terviewed, 25 stated that neither the counselors 
nor the corpsman advisors had helped them plan 
for courses and training needed in obtaining a 
job. 

3. Six of the advisors did not advise the corpsmen 
on habits of behavior and appearance needed for 
successful job performance. 

4. Eleven of the advisors did not monitor the corps- 
men's progress during their stay at the Center 
generally because the necessary records were re¬ 
tained by the corpsman advisor coordinator. 

5. Three of the advisors did not report corpsmen's 
absences from the biweekly meetings to the corps- 
man advisor coordinator. One advisor had not 


48 


reported absences because the corpsman advisor 
coordinator had not asked for such information. 

6. Ten of the advisors kept no records of the bi¬ 
weekly meetings. 

7. Eight of the advisors did not consult with the 
corpsmen concerning the corpsmen's readiness to 
leave the Center and obtain employment or return 
to school. 

8. Eleven of the advisors generally did not know 
which corpsmen were assigned to them because they 
were not furnished with the names of new enroll- 
ees arriving at the Center or of those corpsmen 
who terminated since the last biweekly meeting. 

9. Only three of the advisors believed that the 
corpsman advisory system had any significant 
value. Other advisors stated that the system had 
limited or no value to the corpsmen. 

In addition, several of the advisors stated that 
they needed more information and guidance on areas to 
discuss at the biweekly meetings in order to retain the 
corpsmen's interest. Most of the advisors stated also 
that more privacy was needed in the meetings, because, 
under existing conditions, several groups of corpsmen and 
their advisors met in one room; on many occasions, meet¬ 
ings were disrupted because some groups were dismissed 
while other groups were still in session. Other advisors 
told us that more information on the purpose of the sys¬ 
tem and the advisory limitations of the staff would be 
helpful in improving the effectiveness of the system. 

Conclusions 

We believe that an orderly and systematic program of 
counseling is important in assisting corpsmen to make the 
social, educational, and vocational adjustments necessary 
to satisfactorily complete the Job Corps program and to 
obtain worthwhile employment or further training. The 
counseling program also provides a means by which 


49 



corpsmen may be encouraged to remain at the Center for a 
sufficient period of time to acquire the skills necessary 
to obtain and hold a good job. On the basis of our re¬ 
view, we believe that it is clear that the counseling 
program at the Center had not accomplished the above ob- 
j ectives. 

In our opinion, records of counseling activities 
should be maintained in order to assist management and 
counselors in evaluating the effectiveness of the pro¬ 
gram, in measuring the progress of corpsmen, and in fa¬ 
cilitating uninterrupted, consistent counseling of corps- 
men in the event of personnel changes. 

Recommendations to the Director of 0E0 


We recommend that 0E0 require that counseling be 
conducted on a regularly scheduled basis and that records 
of counseling sessions be maintained. Additionally, we 
recommend that 0E0 reemphasize to the centers the need to 
properly implement the corpsman advisory system. 


In commenting on this matter the Acting Director, 
0E0, stated that: 

"This recommendation is well-founded and 
confirms our findings that the counseling sys¬ 
tem was very weak at this Center. The most 
valuable counseling that takes place at Civil¬ 
ian Conservation Centers is not of a so-called 
purely professional nature. It takes place in 
an on-going and spontaneous situation between a 
staffman and a corpsman and is frequently most 
effective in an unscheduled setting. Counsel¬ 
ing can occur only after a receptive situation 
develops through acceptance and trust of the 
staffman by the corpsman. Every corpsman needs 
counseling but very few corpsmen need or can be 
provided the therapy counseling that this re¬ 
port implies. 


50 



"The Corpsman Advisory System is designed to be 
an adjunct to the Center counseling efforts. 

It is most meaningful when the corpsman per¬ 
ceives the advisor as a person interested in 
his well-being and when the corpsman can emu¬ 
late the advisor. Experience indicates that a 
rigid system of recordkeeping can hinder this 
relationship since such relationship is not 
amenable to formula description. However, if 
there is an open line of communication, the ad¬ 
visor can assist his advisee to adjust to the 
new environment and clarify the goals and ob¬ 
jectives of the Civilian Conservation Center 
program. The guidance needed to select a vo¬ 
cation is provided by the Corpsman Advisor, 
Counselor, and Vocational Training Coordinator. 

This coordination of effort is needed since the 
Vocational Training Coordinator is most famil¬ 
iar with the Center program, the Counselor is 
best qualified to offer guidance in making such 
choices, while the Advisor is most familiar 
with the individual. Corpsman Advisors can 
change attitudes and determine when the corps- 
man should be referred to the professional 
counselor. However, this referral is made only 
after he has done all he can for the corpsman." 

We agree that few corpsmen need therapy counseling. 
However, we believe that the professional counselor 
should periodically, for example once a month, meet with 
each corpsman to discuss pertinent matters such as the 
corpsman*s progress and problems in meeting his goals. 

We believe that this is desirable since it is the profes¬ 
sional counselor who has the overall responsibility for 
the counseling program and presumably, because of his 
qualifications, is better equipped than the corpsman ad¬ 
visors to guide the corpsmen to their career goals. 

Also, we agree that a rigid system of recordkeeping 
may be undesirable \ however, we believe that the coun¬ 
selors and corpsman advisors should note the essential 
elements of discussions with corpsmen in the scheduled 
individual and group meetings. 


51 


We note also the Acting Director's overall comment 
that there were certain factors beyond OEO's control 
which may have adversely affected the program. 


52 


UNIFORM GRADUATING CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED 


We found that the Center did not follow uniform ob¬ 
jective criteria for graduation, with the result that a 
number of terminating corpsmen were classified as grad¬ 
uates who had not achieved acceptable standards of conduct 
or progress. 

Prior to May 1968, Job Corps policy provided that, 
to be classified as a graduate, a corpsman must complete 
a "defined program"; however, it did not furnish the cen¬ 
ters with specific objective standards as to what consti¬ 
tuted a defined program. The lack of such standards has, 
in our opinion, deprived the Job Corps of information with 
which to measure the performance of the various centers, 
and has deprived prospective employers of the assurance 
that all Job Corps graduates possess the minimum knowledge 
and job skills necessary for successful employment. 

Job Corps did establish graduation standards which 
were prescribed in a Task Force Report issued on May 2, 
1968; and our review showed that none of the graduates 
reported by the Center during calendar year 1967 had 
achieved sufficient knowledge and occupational skills to 
meet these standards. 

Separations from the Job Corps program are classi¬ 
fied "completion," "medical," "administrative," "death," 
"disciplinary," "absent without leave," or "resignation." 
For his record to show "completion" or "graduate" of the 
Job Corps program, a corpsman must have completed a de¬ 
fined program during his residency at the center. 

Three categories of terminations have been established 
by Job Corps for purposes of defining the degree of place¬ 
ment support and services to be provided Job Corps ter- 
minees. Category I terminees, those corpsmen who have 
completed a defined program, are provided continuous 
placement services by the regional office of jurisdiction 
for a period of 90 days after the date of departure from 
the center. Category II terminees, those corpsmen whose 
length of stay at the centers has exceeded 90 days but 


53 



who have not completed a defined program, are provided 
placement service for a period of 30 days. Category III 
terminees include corpsmen whose length of stay at the 
centers has been less than 90 days and who have not com¬ 
pleted a defined program. Corpsmen terminating in this 
category are referred back to their community for place¬ 
ment assistance from the State and local agencies. 

Prior to May 1968, Job Corps had not provided the 
Job Corps centers with uniform minimum requirements for 
the completion of a defined program. The centers were 
permitted to establish their own standards for classify¬ 
ing corpsmen as Job Corps graduates. In the absence of 
specific guidelines, the Eight Canyon Center developed 
and followed three different procedures in identifying 
those corpsmen who completed a defined program and 
thereby were considered graduates of the Center's program. 

Under the first procedure, in effect from the time 
the Center received its first corpsmen in March 1966 
until August 9, 1967, the Center classified as graduates 
those corpsmen who either (1) acquired a job, (2) entered 
other training programs such as those provided under the 
Manpower Development and Training Act, (3) returned to 
school, (4) were accepted by the Armed Forces, or (5) com¬ 
pleted a defined program while in residency for at least 
90 days. 

Under this procedure, a corpsman who had been at 
the Center over 90 days was considered as having com¬ 
pleted a defined program if, on the basis of the avail¬ 
able records and consultation with the various department 
heads of the Center, it was decided that the corpsman had 
absorbed all he could from the education program (without 
regard to any specified level of achievement); that the 
training available at the Center in his chosen vocational 
field had been acquired; and that the job performance 
skills course had been completed. Completion of the job 
performance skills course required 10 days of satisfac¬ 
tory performance, while assigned to a work project, in 
such matters as wearing proper clothing, following in¬ 
structions, and being punctual. 


54 


On August 10, 1967, the Center revised its criteria 
for the completion of a defined program to include com¬ 
pleting the Job Corps basic reading and math programs 
(equivalent to about grade seven), in addition to ac¬ 
quiring the vocational training available at the Center 
and completing the job performance skills course required 
under the former criteria. 

We were advised by a responsible official that this 
procedure was adopted in an effort to provide a more 
uniform basis for classifying graduates. 

The Center director informed us, however, that the 
above criteria for completion of a defined program re¬ 
sulted in fewer graduations because many of the corpsmen 
could not complete the basic reading and math programs. 
Therefore, this requirement was relaxed in February 1968 
to again permit those terminees who had reached their 
individual learning capacity in the reading and math pro¬ 
grams to be classified as graduates. 

During calendar year 1967, the Center reported 77 
corpsmen as having successfully completed the require¬ 
ments for graduation described above. However, our re¬ 
view of the records available at the Center, showing the 
corpsman's reading and math level attained, length of 
stay at the Center, and qualifications as to vocational 
skills, revealed that 28 of the 77 reported graduates did 
not meet the Center's criteria for graduation in one or 
more respects. We noted that, although the Center's cri¬ 
teria for graduation during the period August 10 through 
December 31, 1967, provided for completion of the basic 
reading and math programs, 24 of the 37 graduates re¬ 
ported during that period had not met those requirements 
and that records summarizing the vocational qualifications 
of four of the other 40 graduates showed that they had not 
satisfactorily progressed in their vocational training, 
although this was also a requirement for graduation. 

Of the 28 corpsmen who did not meet the Center's 
criteria for graduation during calendar year 1967, six 


55 


failed to meet more than one of the established criteria. 
For example, two of the corpsmen reported as graduates 
not only failed to complete the basic reading and math 
programs, but also were in residency at the Center for 
less than 90 days. In four other instances, the corpsmen 
did not either complete the basic reading and/or math 
programs or make satisfactory progress in their vocational 
training. 

Following are examples of corpsmen reported as grad¬ 
uates by the Center during calendar year 1967. 

Corpsman A --This corpsman was 16 years old when he 
entered the Center's program on March 18, 1967. He 
terminated his enrollment and was reported as a 
graduate 116 days later on July 11, 1967. 

The records available at the Center showed that this 
corpsman made very little progress in either educa¬ 
tion or vocational training. He entered the begin¬ 
ning reading program at milestone two and made no 
further progress. He entered the math program at 
milestone two and exited at milestone four. 

This corpsman's work experience while at the Center 
consisted of 92 hours' training in the identifica¬ 
tion of hand tools, 4 hours' training in fire sup¬ 
pression, and 76 hours' training in forest-fire 
fighting. The corpsman's resume of qualifications, 
which was furnished to the 0E0 regional office for 
placement purposes at the time of his termination, 
contained the comment that he had little ability and 
was easily thwarted in educational endeavors. 

Corpsman B —This corpsman was 17 years old when he 
arrived at the Center on August 29, 1966. The rec¬ 
ords pertinent to his training showed that he made 
little progress during his residency at the Center. 

He entered the basic reading program at milestone 11 
and made no further progress prior to leaving the 


56 




Center. The resume of his qualifications contained 
remarks that indicated he was capable of more pro¬ 
gress than he achieved. 

On April 21, 1967, one week prior to the termination 
of this enrollment, he was referred to a psychiatrist 
for consultation. The psychiatrist’s report, dated 
April 24, 1967, diagnosed the corpsman as having de¬ 
fective psychosexual development and recommended that 
he be returned home for follow-up psychiatric coun¬ 
seling . 

His enrollment was terminated 4 days later, on 
April 28, 1967, and he was reported as a graduate. 

Corpsman C - This corpsman entered the program on 
February 15, 1967, when he was 18 years old. The 
records pertinent to his termination from the Center 
disclosed that on September 20, 1967, he was reported 
as absent without leave and that 9 days later, on 
September 29, 1967, his enrollment was terminated by 
the Center and he was reported as a graduate. 

Although we were unable to determine in each instance 
why corpsmen who did not fully meet the Center's criteria 
for graduation were reported as graduates, it appeared 
that many of the errors resulted from clerical mistakes 
and the failure to specifically review each corpsman's 
qualifications in light of the established criteria for 
graduation. 

On May 2, 1968, prior to the conclusion of our site 
review, 0E0 furnished the conservation centers with guide¬ 
lines setting forth minimum requirements for completion of 
the Civilian Conservation Center program. The guidelines, 
which were to be fully implemented by June 30, 1968, pro¬ 
vide that, in order to be classified as Category I grad¬ 
uates, corpsmen must meet certain minimum requirements as 
to educational, social, and occupational skills. 


57 



The minimum requirements for satisfactory completion 
of the educational skills program include, in part, com¬ 
pletion of the Job Corps reading program through level 7 
(milestone 14), as verified by scores on the Stanford 
Achievement Tests, and completion of the Job Corps basic 
mathematics program (milestone 13). The guidelines also 
provide that corpsmen must be considered satisfactory by 
the centers in certain social/attitudinal skills, such as 
reliability, respect for property, appropriate appearance, 
cooperation, attitude toward safety, and appropriate re¬ 
spect for authority. In addition, corpsmen must be certi¬ 
fied as meeting the requirements of at least one entry 
level job as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational 
Titles.1 

Under the new guidelines, Category I terminations are 
to include only those corpsmen who complete the conserva¬ 
tion center program in accordance with the above minimum 
requirements. Category II terminations are to include all 
corpsmen remaining at the centers for more than 90 days 
without satisfactorily completing the minimum requirements, 
and Category III terminations are to include corpsmen who 
do not stay in the Job Corps program for 90 days. 

Our analysis of the qualifications of the 77 corps- 
men reported as graduates during calendar year 1967 showed 
that none of the corpsmen would have met all the minimum 
requirements for graduation prescribed by 0E0 on May 2, 
1968. Although 14 of the 77 corpsmen had completed the 
prescribed Job Corps reading level, 10 of those corpsmen 
did not score satisfactorily on the Stanford Achievement 
Tests. Responsible Center officials advised us that none 
of the four remaining corpsmen would have met the minimum 
requirements as to entry level occupational skills. 


The Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which is prepared 
by the U.S. Employment Service, Department of Labor, 
provides an identification of jobs, their content, and 
worker requirements. 


58 



Conclusions and agency comments 


As shown by the above, it is doubtful that, on the 
basis of Job Corps minimum requirements, any of the grad¬ 
uates reported by the Center during calendar year 1967 
had achieved sufficient knowledge and occupational skills 
to obtain and hold jobs with good pay and advancement 
potential upon leaving the Center. It is also apparent 
that the lack of standards for determining when a corps- 
man is qualified for graduation has deprived the Job 
Corps of information with which to measure the perfor¬ 
mance of the centers. 

We believe, however, that the minimum requirements 
for graduation of corpsmen prescribed on May 2, 1968, if 
properly implemented, will provide a uniform and more 
meaningful basis for comparing the performance of the 
various centers, and more assurance to employers that the 
graduates possess the minimum knowledge and job skill 
necessary for successful employment. 

The Acting Director, 0E0, advised us that he agreed 
with our findings but added that: 

***** Any assumption that considers that a majority 
of corpsmen now in Job Corps will totally complete 
the training standard during their tenure in Job 
Corps is questionable. 

"We can define the level of accomplishment of any 
corpsmen through use of the standards and use them 
in goal setting. However, many corpsmen will go 
into industry based primarily on their ability to 
communicate at a minimum acceptable level, their 
ability to work with others, their attitude and 
motivation to work. 

"Graduation criteria in Job Corps must be related 
very closely with a positive exit from Job Corps 
to prevent crushing those who cannot meet the 
s tandards." 


59 



We agree that corpsmen whose enrollment has been 
terminated should have their ability recognized even 
though they may not have been graduated. However, we 
believe that this position should in no way detract from 
the efforts of Job Corps to have all enrollees attain 
the minimum goals established by the Task Force. 


60 


SHORT LENGTH OF STAY 

OF CORPSMEN 


On the basis of prior experience, Job Corps believes 
that corpsmen must remain in the program for at least 
6 months in order to receive the training necessary to 
find jobs with good pay and advancement potential. In 
this regard, a goal of 9 months was established as the 
average length of stay for corpsmen at all conservation 
centers during fiscal year 1968. However, the majority 
of the corpsmen who entered the Eight Canyon Center dur¬ 
ing calendar year 1967 terminated their enrollment in 
less than 6 months (about 70 percent) and, on the basis 
of Job Corps experience, may not have received sufficient 
training to obtain and hold a job at the entry level. 

The status of the Center's records did not permit us 
to determine the number of corpsmen who had entered the 
program after the Center was activated in March 1966. 

The various log books and termination records showing the 
names of corpsmen and dates of their entry into and ter¬ 
mination from the Center were inconsistent and incomplete. 
In the absence of pertinent data on all corpsmen entering 
and terminating the program after the Center's activa¬ 
tion, we determined the number of corpsmen who entered 
the Center during calendar year 1967 and the number of 
those corpsmen who had terminated as of June 28, 1968. 

Of 504 corpsmen who entered the Center during cal¬ 
endar year 1967, 237, or about 47 percent, terminated in 
less than 90 days and a total of 350, or about 70 per¬ 
cent, in less than 6 months. By June 28, 1968, 439, or 
approximately 87 percent of the 504 corpsmen, had ter¬ 
minated. In addition, of the 439 corpsmen who had left, 
only 30 remained at the Center for as long as 9 months, 
including only eight who remained for as long as a year. 
The total terminations were classified by the Center as 
follows (a table showing the number of terminations by 
length of stay and corpsman age at entry into the Job 
Corps program is included as app. II): 


61 




Type of terminations 

Number 

Percent 

Resigned 

126 

28.77o 

Absent without leave (AWOL) discharge 

103 

23.5 

Graduates (note a) 

89 

20.3 

Transfer to other centers 

53 

12.1 

Disciplinary discharge 

37 

8.4 

Administrative discharge (note b) 

24 

5.4 

Medical discharge 

4 

.9 

Jobs 

2 

.5 

Military 

1 

.2 

Total 

439 

100.0% 


See our discussion of graduates beginning on page 53 of 
this report. 

^Includes discharges for falsification of or erroneous 
data on application document and withdrawal of parental 
consent. 


We were unable to determine the reasons why corpsmen 
resigned or went AWOL from the Center, because records 
showing such information had not been prepared by Center 
officials. A responsible official advised us that, al¬ 
though exit interviews were conducted with terminating 
corpsmen, records showing the specific reasons for such 
terminations were not prepared. 


With regard to the overall short length of stay, 
corpsmen accepted into the Job Corps program prior to Au¬ 
gust 15, 1967, were required to sign commitments agreeing 
to remain in the program for 90 days. Effective Au¬ 
gust 15, 1967, Job Corps extended the length of stay com¬ 
mitments from 90 to 180 days. This revision was based 
on Job Corps’ determination that corpsmen must remain in 
the program for at least 6 months in order to receive the 
training necessary to find jobs with good pay and ad¬ 
vancement potential. We made an analysis in May 1968 of 
the length of stay of 126 corpsmen who entered the Center 
after implementation of the 180-day commitment on Au¬ 
gust 15, 1967, and found that, while some improvement had 


62 











been accomplished in the overall length of stay, over 
half of the 126 corpsmen still terminated in less than 
6 months. 

The Center director advised us that two new proce¬ 
dures were initiated in January 1968 in an effort to in¬ 
crease the corpsmen's average length of stay. He stated 
that transfers of corpsmen to other Job Corps centers 
(primarily urban centers) had been discouraged since that 
time and that a graduation and training review board had 
been established to, among other things, encourage corps- 
men to remain at the Center for longer periods in order 
to maximize their training opportunity. Sufficient time 
had not elasped at the time of our field review to eval¬ 
uate the effect that the procedures adopted in January 
1968 may have had on the length of stay. 

Conclusions and agency comments 

In our opinion, increasing the corpsmen's average 
length of stay is vitally important if the Center is to 
achieve the Job Corps goal of providing corpsmen with 
sufficient educational and vocational training to obtain 
jobs with good pay and advancement potential. 

The reasons for corpsmen's short length of stay at 
the Eight Canyon Center are undoubtedly many and varied, 
some of which are most likely beyond the control of the 
Center management, such as the recruiting of youth not 
suited to the type of training offered. However, we be¬ 
lieve that the short length of stay can, to some extent 
at least, be directly attributed to the Center's failure 
to implement a sound program of basic education, voca¬ 
tional training, and counseling, as previously discussed 
in this report. 

In January 1969, the Acting Director, 0E0, advised 
us that OEO's full efforts were being devoted to in¬ 
creasing the length of stay in the total program and that 
the new programs developed to improve the vocational 
training experience of the corpsmen would have a positive 
effect on length of stay. He advised us also that Job 
Corps was developing a new orientation program, refining 


63 



the corpsman advisory system and that, as each segment 
of the program was strengthened, positive results would 
be demonstrated. 

Further, the Acting Director of Survey and Review, 
Department of the Interior, advised us that it was an¬ 
ticipated that the changes brought about by recent re¬ 
visions to the corpsman advisory system, the Task Force 
Report, the revised Work-Vocational Training Manual, 
along with the specific Job Corps Training Standards, 
would result in the corpmen's becoming more involved and 
their length of stay increasing considerably. He based 
this statement on the fact that these changes carefully 
"track" and document each corpsman's progress and that 
the corpsman is advised concerning how far he has come 
and what he must do to reach his goal. 

We believe that the actions outlined by 0E0 and the 
Department of the Interior should result in improvements 
in the length of stay of corpsmen. 


64 


EFFICIENCY OF ADMINISTRATION 


OF THE EIGHT CANYON CENTER 

WEAKNESSES IN CONTROLS OVER AND 

UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY 


The controls over capital property were inadequate 
in that a substantial amount of property had not been 
properly accounted for and a significant amount of prop¬ 
erty had not been used or had been used ineffectively. 

The Center's management of materials and supplies was 
also inadequate in that a significant amount of materials 
and supplies had not been recorded in the inventory con¬ 
trol records and the on-hand quantities of many items 
were erroneously recorded in the inventory records. Our 
findings are discussed below. 

Property management 

The original agreement between the Department of the 
Interior and the Office of Economic Opportunity provides 
that the Secretary of the Interior shall furnish logis¬ 
tical support for each conservation center. The agree¬ 
ment further provides that such support include the pro¬ 
curement of the supplies, equipment, and materials nec¬ 
essary for the maintenance and operation of the centers. 
These responsibilities were reiterated in a supplemental 
interagency agreement effective July 1, 1967. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs policy provides that the 
Area Director be responsible for carrying out the prop¬ 
erty management program in the area. This program in¬ 
cludes acquisition, recording, utilization, and disposi¬ 
tion of all Government property under the area's juris¬ 
diction. These responsibilities have been delegated to 
the superintendents of the agencies within the area of¬ 
fice's jurisdiction and further to the accountable of¬ 
fices of the various field units. 

Purchasing authority from open market sources (not 
to exceed $2,500), General Services Administration (GSA) 
stores stock, Federal Supply Schedules, and other 


65 







sources, has been delegated to agency superintendents, 
administrative officers, and property officers or per¬ 
sons acting in those capacities. Materials are purchased 
by the Center on the basis of requisitions approved by 
the Center director or the Center administrative officer. 
Purchase orders are prepared and issued by the Branch of 
Property and Supply at the Albuquerque Area Office. 

The primary emphasis of our review of the Center’s 
property management program was an evaluation of the con¬ 
trols over capital property, including the effectiveness 
of property utilization, and an evaluation of the manage¬ 
ment of materials and supplies. 

Utilization of property 

Educational and vocational training equipment, such 
as automotive shop equipment, maintenance shop equipment, 
and textbooks, costing about $23,000, had been used only 
on a limited basis or not at all. In addition, we iden¬ 
tified a significant amount of other materials and sup¬ 
plies costing about $24,500 which had not been effec¬ 
tively used. Examples of inadequate utilization of prop¬ 
erty are described below. 

Automotive and maintenance 

shop equipment--cost $7,360 

During January 1967, the Center acquired 52 items 
of automotive and maintenance shop equipment costing 
about $18,800. Delivery of the equipment to the Center 
was the result of a contract negotiated by 0E0 on May 6, 
1966, with a supply contractor for delivery of standard 
sets of similar equipment to about 90 conservation cen¬ 
ters. The contract was in the sum of $1,683,000. 

Our review of the use made of this equipment showed 
that nine items of the automotive shop equipment costing 
about $5,540 had received little or no use after acquisi¬ 
tion. Six of the nine items, such as a power mechanic 
bench, mobile brake shop, and portable alignment set, 
had not been used at all. At the time of our field re¬ 
view, little or no use had been made of the maintenance 


66 





shop equipment costing about $1,820, including a wood 
turning table, an electrical bench, and a lapidary unit. 

Center officials advised us that part of the equip¬ 
ment was not used because vocational training courses 
which required use of the equipment had not been imple¬ 
mented at the Center and that in other instances the 
equipment was not used because other similar equipment 
on hand was adequate for the Center's needs. 

Textbooks and related teaching 

materials--cost $7.490 

During October 1966, 2,343 textbooks, such as books 
on English grammer, nutrition, personal health, consumer 
math, and related materials, costing about $8,420, were 
furnished the Center by 0E0 for instructional purposes. 

At the time of our review in April 1968, materials cost¬ 
ing about $7,490 were in storage at the Center and had 
not been used. 

We were advised by the principal-teacher of the Cen¬ 
ter that the materials had been furnished by 0E0 head¬ 
quarters for use with those corpsmen who attained an ad¬ 
vanced reading level of nine or above. He stated, how¬ 
ever, that the books had not been used because they were 
too advanced for effective use with the corpsmen, includ¬ 
ing those corpsmen who had attained an advanced reading 
level of nine or more. This official stated further that 
some of the books, such as those on first aid and safety, 
were used with a limited number of corpsmen prior to Feb¬ 
ruary 1968, at which time 0E0 evaluators recommended that 
the Center discontinue use of the materials because they 
were too difficult. 

Library books 

During January 1966, the Center acquired 1,472 as¬ 
sorted excess books from Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas, at 
no cost. On the basis of data furnished us by the Cen¬ 
ter librarian, it appears that 1,134 of the books were 
never used and that an additional 287 were infrequently 


67 





used, usually less than once a month. Following are ex¬ 
amples of the subjects of these books: 

1. Principles of Nuclear Reactor Engineering 

2. Civil Engineering Handbook 

3. Quantum Theory 

4. Basic Synchros and Servomechanisms 

5. Structures and Properties of Alloys 

6. Dendrology 

The Center librarian advised us that the books were 
not used because they were too advanced for the corpsmen. 

Tape duplicators, dictating recorders, and 

transcribing machines--cost $3,370 

This equipment consisting of 12 items was purchased 
in October 1965 at a total cost of $5,070. Four of the 
items were subsequently transferred to other activities 
because they were not needed at the Center, two other 
items retained at the Center had never been used, and 
three had not been used for about 1 year. The three re¬ 
maining items had been used infrequently. 

On the basis of our discussions with the Center di¬ 
rector and the assistant center director, it appears that 
this equipment was not used because of the preference of 
the staff for other equipment. The Center director ad¬ 
vised us that the eight items of this equipment, costing 
about $3,370, which were on hand at the Center at the 
time of our field review would be declared excess to the 
Center's needs and made available to other activities. 

Laundry equipment 

/ 

During April 1967, the Center acquired various items 
of excess laundry equipment (original acquisition cost 
was about $34,200) from Walker Air Force Base, New 
Mexico, at no cost to the Center. In February 1968, this 
equipment (one press, three tumblers, three extractors, 
and three washers) had not been used and was in storage 
at the Center. 


68 






The Center director disclosed that, although the 
equipment had been acquired for use in the dormitories 
because the existing equipment was continually breaking 
down, after receipt of the items at the Center they were 
found to be too large and complicated for efficient use. 
He told us that, in accordance with Bureau regulations, 
he had sent an employee to Walker Air Force Base to phys¬ 
ically inspect the equipment prior to ordering it for the 
Center. He stated that the employee, no longer at the 
Center, had represented the equipment to be suitable for 
the needs of the Center and that, as a result of this 
representation, the equipment was ordered. On March 12, 
1968, the Center reported the equipment as excess to its 
needs. 

Leased vehicles--rental cost $7,250 

The usage made of 42 vehicles, obtained under a GSA 
leasing agreement at a total rental cost of about $32,400 
during calendar year 1967, indicated that the Center had 
more vehicles than it could effectively use. 

The mileage report showed that 12 of the 42 vehi¬ 
cles had been driven on an average per month basis less 
than the mileage standards set by GSA for economical re¬ 
tention of vehicles. For example, GSA’s minimum mileage 
set for 1/2-ton and 3/4-ton pick-up trucks is 600 miles 
per month while the Center’s use of 10 similar-class 
trucks averaged only 339 miles. Also, two other trucks 
with a standard minimum mileage set at 333 miles per 
month, averaged only 205 miles. The calendar year 1967 
rental cost of the 12 vehicles amounted to about $7,250. 

Also, contrary to established Bureau policy, some 
of the leased vehicles were assigned to individual Center 
officials rather than pooled and dispatched on an as- 
needed basis. 

With respect to the need for retaining the low-use 
vehicles, we were advised by a responsible Center offi¬ 
cial that he had recommended to appropriate Center offi¬ 
cials in February 1967 that a number of the vehicles be 
returned to the GSA motor pool since they were not being 


69 



effectively used. We were also advised by the Center 
administrative officer during March 1968 that, on the 
basis of his examination of the use of these vehicles, 
about six were not needed. 

The Center director advised us that, as a result of 
our review, four vehicles were being returned to GSA and 
that studies would be made to determine whether addi¬ 
tional vehicles could be released. 

Controls over property 

We believe that there is a need for better controls 
over Center property. A number of assets had not been 
recorded on the accountable records, certain assets had 
been unaccounted for, physical inventories of materials 
and supplies had not been taken, and perpetual inventory 
records had not been accurately maintained. 

Unrecorded assets 


A physical inventory of all capital property taken 
by representatives of the Bureau’s Area Office at Albu¬ 
querque, New Mexico, on January 15, 1968, showed that 
99 items, such as jointers, grinders, bench saws, and 
clerical desks, valued at about $33,200, had not been 
entered in the property records although, according to 
the Area Property Management Officer, all the items had 
been on hand since before January 1, 1967. The Center 
director advised us that, because this property had been 
acquired prior to his arrival at the Center in January 
1967, he could not explain why it had not been recorded 
in the accountable records. Responsible officials of the 
Branch of Property and Supply, Albuquerque Area Office, 
advised us that, based on the results of their physical 
inventory of January 15, 1968, the necessary corrections 
would be made to the property records. 

Records available at the Center and the Area Office 
Branch of Property and Supply further showed that facili¬ 
ties and improvements valued at approximately $289,142 
had not been entered in the real property records at the 
time of our review, in February 1968, although some of 


70 




the facilities and improvements had been acquired as 
early as December 1965. Center officials were unable to 
explain why this property had not been recorded in the 
real property records. They advised us, however, that 
the necessary corrections would be made to the account¬ 
ability records. 

Items unaccounted for 

The physical inventory of personal property taken 
by the Area Office Branch of Property and Supply also 
indicated that 75 property items valued about $62,355 
could not be located. We were advised, however, that, 
because of adverse weather conditions at the Center dur¬ 
ing the course of the physical inventory, a concerted ef¬ 
fort to locate these items could not be made. The Area 
Office representatives returned to the Center during 
March 1968 and, with our assistance, located most of the 
75 items. However, as of June 19, 1968, a portable type¬ 
writer, two floor polishers, and a rock drill, valued at 
a total of about $1,024, were still unaccounted for. 

Inventory procedures for 

materials and supplies 

Our review of the Center's controls over invento¬ 
ries of materials and supplies showed that (1) physical 
inventories of all of these supplies had not been taken, 
contrary to Bureau policy, and (2) perpetual inventory 
records had not been maintained in an accurate and reli¬ 
able manner. Physical inventories of work project mate¬ 
rials and supplies were not taken by Center officials for 
the fiscal quarters ended December 31, 1967, and 
March 31, 1968, although this was required by Bureau pol¬ 
icy. 


The responsible official told us that he had esti¬ 
mated the December 31, 1967, inventory because at the 
time the perpetual inventory cards, which were estab¬ 
lished during January 1968, had not been completed for 
all items. He further stated that a physical inventory 
was impracticable at the time because of adverse weather 
conditions. In regard to the March 31, 1968, inventory. 


71 





this official told us that a physical inventory had not 
been taken because the perpetual inventory cards had been 
completed by that time and it was considered easier, and 
as accurate, to use the balances shown on the cards than 
to conduct a physical inventory. 

Our review of the accuracy of the perpetual inven¬ 
tory records showed that a substantial amount of mate¬ 
rials and supplies on hand had been omitted from the rec¬ 
ords and that quantities on hand and unit prices of many 
items had been incorrectly stated in the inventory rec¬ 
ords . 


Our test of the inventory of work project materials 
and supplies showed that several items, such as sand¬ 
stone, asphalt, and plastic pipe, had not been entered 
on the perpetual inventory records although some had been 
on hand since June 1965. Our review of the Center's 
clothing inventory records also disclosed that the cost 
of a substantial amount of clothing had been omitted from 
the inventory records. For example, various items, such 
as sweat shirts, sweat pants, and blazers, costing a to¬ 
tal of about $3,415, had not been entered on the perpet¬ 
ual inventory cards although, based on our discussions 
with a responsible Center official and our review of pur¬ 
chase orders, all the items were or should have been on 
hand at the Center prior to the physical inventory date. 

Our tests of the perpetual inventory records for 
clothing and work project materials and supplies showed 
further that numerous errors had been made in extensions, 
in recordings of receipts and issues, and in unit prices. 
For example, our test--which included types of items that 
in the aggregate were valued at $75 or more on Febru¬ 
ary 20, 1968 (40 of 217 items)--showed that various er¬ 
rors had been made in the inventory records in each of 
the 40 items reviewed, which resulted in a total over¬ 
statement of about $1,323. Errors were made, overstating 
the quantities on hand of 23 of the items and understat¬ 
ing the quantities on hand of 15 other items. In addi¬ 
tion, the unit cost was incorrectly stated on 35 of the 
40 items, and 11 items were improperly extended. Simi¬ 
larly, our test of 12 of 18 items of work project 


72 


materials and supplies on hand on April 9, 1968, showed 
that four of the items were understated by about $8,860 
and six other items were overstated by about $1,267. 

We learned from discussions with the Center adminis¬ 
tration officer concerning the overall inaccuracy of the 
clothing inventory records that, for the most part, the 
records were inaccurate because they were based on unre¬ 
liable physical inventories taken by corpsmen. The Cen¬ 
ter director advised us, however, that, as a result of 
our findings, a complete physical inventory would be 
taken by Center officials as a basis for making the nec¬ 
essary corrections to the inventory records. 

With respect to the Center's management of mate¬ 
rials and supplies, the latest 0E0 evaluation report of 
Center activities, dated February 16, 1968, stated that 
generally the supply system for clothing, administrative 
supplies, and work project materials and supplies was 
very good. This report stated further that stock-record 
control systems had been established and that, except for 
minor problems which the Center management was aware of 
and was in process of correcting, the systems were func¬ 
tioning well. 

In discussing our findings with responsible Bureau 
officials, we were advised that periodic reviews of the 
Center's inventories of clothing and work project mate¬ 
rials and supplies would be included in future evalua¬ 
tions of Center activities by Bureau representatives. 

Conclusions 


As a result of our review, we believe that there is 
a need to improve the Center's management and controls 
over property in order to promote greater efficiency and 
economy in the overall administration of the program. 

We believe that property which is not being effec¬ 
tively utilized and for which there is no programmed use 
should be declared excess and made available to other ac¬ 
tivities. None of the property that we identified as not 
in use had been reported as excess to the Center's needs 


73 



at the time of our field review. The Center was eval¬ 
uated by representatives of 0E0 during August 1967 and 
February 1968 and by representatives of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs during December 1967 and May 1968. The 
0E0 evaluation reports and the Bureau report dated De¬ 
cember 31, 1967, showed that, although in some cases the 
evaluations included reviews of certain aspects of the 
Center's property management program, they generally did 
not include in-depth reviews of the utilization and dis¬ 
posal of property. On the basis of the relatively sub¬ 
stantial amount of property which we identified as not 
having been used or having been used ineffectively and 
the fact that none of the property had been reported ex¬ 
cess to the Center's needs prior to our review, we be¬ 
lieve that future evaluations of the Center should be 
broadened to include tests of the use and disposal of un¬ 
needed property. 

We believe also that the amount of property, includ¬ 
ing real property, other capital property, and materials 
and supplies, which we found had not been properly ac¬ 
counted for, further demonstrates the need to improve the 
management and controls over all property. In our opin¬ 
ion, accurate and reliable inventory data on all property 
is essential in the day-to-day management of property re¬ 
sources, including data on property acquisition, control 
and use, and disposal. 

We again give recognition to the Acting Director's 
comment that there were certain factors beyond 0E0's con¬ 
trol which may have adversely affected the Center's op¬ 
eration. 

Certain actions have been taken or have been pro¬ 
posed by responsible Bureau and Center officials to im¬ 
prove controls over the utilization of property at the 
Center. These actions include periodic reviews of the 
inventories of materials and supplies by Bureau repre¬ 
sentatives, disposal of all property excess to the Cen¬ 
ter s needs, and correction of real and personal property 
records. 


74 


Recommendation to the Director of 0E0 

and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 

With regard to the ineffective utilization of the 
property identified by our review and the failure to re¬ 
port all property not being used as excess to require¬ 
ments, we recommend to the Director of 0E0 and the Com¬ 
missioner of Indian Affairs that future evaluations by 
Bureau representatives be broadened to include determi¬ 
nations as to the effectiveness with which conservation 
centers utilize and dispose of property. 


The Acting Director, 0E0, concurred in general with 
our findings. The Director of Survey and Review stated 
that: 


"Determination of the use and disposal of Eight 
Canyon Center equipment was not up-to-date at 
the time of the GAO review. Future Bureau of 
Indian Affairs semi-annual evaluations will em¬ 
phasize determinations of the effectiveness 
with which property is used and disposed of. 

Much of the equipment that may have been inef¬ 
fectively utilized or excess during the GAO re¬ 
view is now needed to implement PM 400-15 of 
the Work/Vocational Program Manual. Determi¬ 
nations of use and disposal of equipment are a 
part of the audits performed by the Depart¬ 
ment's Job Corps audit operation and this de¬ 
ficiency would have been identified in an audit 
of this Center scheduled for early 1968 if it 
had not been postponed in order to avoid con¬ 
flict with, and duplication of, the GAO audit." 

We believe that the action outlined above by the De¬ 
partment of the Interior, together with the action taken 
or proposed by Bureau and Center officials, should, if 
properly implemented, strengthen the property management 
system at the conservation centers. 


75 




ASSIGNMENT OF PROJECT APPRAISAL VALUE 


In April 1968, OEO reported to the Congress that the 
value of conservation work performed, as appraised by the 
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, amounted to 
about $46 million. The act places significance on the 
conservation work to be accomplished by Job Corps, and we 
believe that policies and procedures which will result in 
reasonably accurate valuations are essential to permit 
the Congress to evaluate this aspect of the Job Corps 
program. 

The formula prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Af¬ 
fairs would not necessarily result in reasonable valua¬ 
tions because it is based on the assumption that all 
corpsmen will perform at the same constant level of ef¬ 
ficiency in both their labor and the use of materials. 
Inasmuch as the corpsmen are in training and at varying 
stages of ability to perform, it does not appear reason¬ 
able to us to expect that all corpsmen will perform at a 
constant level as contemplated in the formula. Further, 
the practices followed at the Eight Canyon Center have 
reduced the assurance that can be placed on the valua¬ 
tions since they result in valuations that are sometimes 
lower than valuations which would be derived from strict 
adherence to the Bureau formula. 

Job Corps policy provides that appraised values of 
work projects be assigned in accordance with established 
Bureau procedures for making appraisals. The deputy di¬ 
rector for work at the Center advised us that, in accor¬ 
dance with that policy, appraised values of projects com¬ 
pleted prior to March 20, 1967, were assigned on the basis 
of estimates furnished by responsible officials of the 
Bureau's Mescalero Agency. 

On March 20, 1967, however, the Bureau revised the 
above procedures to reflect appraised values on the basis 
of the direct costs of materials and supplies used on the 
project, including equipment and vehicle usage costs and 
the estimated value of corpsman labor used on the project. 
The estimated value of corpsman labor was to be determined 
on the basis of one third of the going labor rate in the 


76 



area for similar work. The formula was provided by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to achieve consistency in ap¬ 
praisal methods at centers operated by the Bureau, al¬ 
though it was realized that some inequities would result 
from its use. 

At the time of our review in March 1968, we found 
that complete records showing the direct costs of all ma¬ 
terials and supplies used on work projects were not main¬ 
tained by the Center. Additionally, until about August 
1967, records showing the number and identity of corpsmen 
working on the various projects were not maintained. Our 
review of the appraised values assigned to completed 
projects was limited to tests of two projects completed 
during June and August 1967--two of the most recently com¬ 
pleted work projects at the time of our field review, 
since none had been completed subsequent to August 1967. 

Our tests of the appraised values assigned to these 
two projects showed that, because the Center (1) did not 
maintain accurate records of direct project costs, (2) did 
not use realistic wage rates and classifications in de¬ 
termining the value of corpsman labor, and (3) used the 
corpsman man-months assigned to the projects rather than 
the corpsman man-months worked on the projects, the values 
assigned varied from the amounts which would have been 
derived under the Bureau formula. An analysis of the ap¬ 
praised value assigned to the project completed in June 
1967 showed that, because of the above, the amount as¬ 
signed may be overstated by as much as $15,000, about 
25 percent of the total project appraised value of 
$59,032. Our tests of the other project, completed in 
August 1967, showed that the appraised value assigned to 
the project was overstated by about $3,136, approximately 
17 percent of the total project appraised value of 
$18,530. 

The deputy director for work advised us that, because 
records showing the costs of all materials and supplies 
used on the work projects had not been accurately main¬ 
tained by the Center, he had to estimate the costs of 
projects on the basis of his judgment as to the materials 
and supplies used. He stated that, of the total ap¬ 
praised value of $59,032 for the project completed in 


77 


June 1967, the amount of gravel used on the project was 
estimated at $38,688 on the following basis: 

Estimate of the total quantity of 
gravel purchased--15,000 cubic 
yards at $4 

Less: estimate of the amount of 

gravel used on Center grounds-- 
5,328 cubic yards at $4 

Balance, assumed as used on the 

project—9,672 cubic yards at $4 $ 38,688 

The deputy director for work said that the above 
method of determining the costs of the gravel was used 
because, although the gravel was delivered by Mescalero 
Agency personnel to both the Center grounds (for roads 
and street maintenance) and the site of the work project, 
records of such deliveries had not been retained. 

Our examination of the available records and discus¬ 
sion with responsible officials of the Mescalero Agency 
concerning the amount of gravel furnished indicated that 
only 3,832 cubic yards of gravel costing about $15,328 
had been delivered to the work project site. Based on 
this, it appears that the costs of materials and supplies 
for the project were overstated by about $23,360 ($38,688 
less $15,328). 

The estimated costs assigned to this project were 
understated by about $8,364 because the Center did not 
use realistic wage rates and labor classifications in de¬ 
termining the value of corpsman labor used on the project. 
A review of the rates and labor classifications showed 
that the Center used $75 per corpsman man-month as repre¬ 
senting one third of the going union rate of $225 per 
man-month for common labor, without regard to the dif¬ 
ferent types of labor used on the project. On this basis, 
$3,900 was assigned to the appraised value as representing 
the value of corpsman labor used on the project. However, 
based on union rates and labor classifications established 
by the Center in July 1967, which recognize the different 
types of labor used other than common labor, the value of 


$60,000 

21,312 


78 





corpsman labor should have been about $12,264 rather than 
$3,900, representing an understatement of $8,364. 

It therefore appears that, due to the procedures fol¬ 
lowed by the Center, the value assigned this project ex¬ 
ceeded by about $15,000 ($23,360 less $8,364) the value 
that would have been assigned by adherence to the Bureau's 
formula. 

The Center has consistently followed the practice of 
determining the value of corpsman labor on the basis of 
the number of man-months assigned to the work projects 
rather than the number of man-months actually worked on 
the projects. Although corpsmen are assigned to the 
projects on the basis of weekly assignment lists which 
show their names and the various duties to which they 
have been assigned, such as educational classes, Center 
detail, or work projects, the assignment lists are not 
subsequently adjusted to reflect absences or reassignments 
to other duties. 

The time records on the project completed in August 
1967, which was appraised at $18,530, showed that, al¬ 
though 58 corpsman man-months were used by the Center in 
determining the value of corpsman labor, only 33.5 man- 
months were actually worked on the projects—an overstate¬ 
ment of 24.5 man-months amounting to about $3,136. 

An analysis of the difference of 24.5 corpsman man- 
months between the amount of time charged to the project 
and the amount of time actually worked showed that 13 of 
the man-months were attributable to home leave, illness, 
etc., and that about 11.5 of the man-months resulted from 
a failure to recognize that corpsmen had been reassigned 
to other work projects. It is evident, therefore, that 
the use of man-months assigned to work projects rather 
than the actual man-months worked on the projects results 
in an overstatement of the individual projects and also 
of the total appraised value of all work projects. 

Conclusions 


We believe that, in order for Job Corps to have the 
benefit of consistent valuations within the limitations 


79 



contained in the Bureau's formula, the Center needs to im¬ 
prove its procedures to more accurately arrive at actual 
and estimated costs. 

The Deputy Job Corps Conservation Center Officer 
advised us, after the conclusion of our site review, that 
improved records and procedures were being designed by the 
Job Corps to properly account for all corpsman time and 
that, upon completion, such records and procedures would 
be disseminated to the centers. The Center director ad¬ 
vised us that, as a result of our review, new procedures 
had been implemented to accurately account for the direct 
cost of materials and supplies used on work projects. 
Implementation of the planned changes should provide 
greater consistency in values assigned. 

We also believe that the formula devised by the Bu¬ 
reau is not adequate to provide assurance that resulting 
appraised values are reasonable because it is based on 
assumptions that all corpsmen will perform at the same 
constant level of efficiency in both labor and use of ma¬ 
terials. Particularly since the corpsmen are in training 
and at varying stages of ability to perform, it does not 
appear reasonable to expect that they all will perform at 
a constant level as contemplated in the formula. 

The weaknesses contained in the Bureau formula and in 
the practices followed at the Center appear to reduce the 
reliance that can be placed on the valuation data pre¬ 
sented to the Congress for its consideration in evaluating 
this aspect of the Job Corps program. 

In our opinion, if Job Corps is to develop fully use¬ 
ful information on conservation work performed, it will be 
necessary to devise a standard appraisal system through 
which reasonably fair values can be assigned. It appears 
to us at this time that an equitable method for establish¬ 
ing the value of conservation projects would be one based 
on estimated replacement cost since this method would re¬ 
sult in valuations in consonance with the probable cost of 
accomplishing a project by alternative means. 


80 


Recommendation to the Director of 0E0 


In order to ensure that reasonable conservation work 
appraisal valuations may be available to the Congress for 
its consideration in evaluating this aspect of the Job 
Corps program, we recommend that 0E0 prescribe a standard 
appraisal system to be followed by all conservation cen¬ 
ters in assigning values to conservation work performed. 


The Director of Survey and Review informed us that 
the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers operated by 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs had been instructed to uti¬ 
lize the Department of the Interior’s system of assigning 
appraisals on the basis of an engineering appraisal of 
replacement cost of a given work project and that, there¬ 
fore, within the Department of the Interior there is only 
one appraisal system in effect for all its camps, until 
such time as the 0E0 is able to carry out our proposal. 

In commenting on this matter, the Acting Director, 
0E0, stated that: 

’’The deficiency was one of performance 
rather than policy and will be corrected. It 
has been Job Corps policy that appraised values 
of work projects be assigned in accordance with 
established Agency procedures. This has been 
understood to mean ’estimated replacement cost,' 
'estimated contract cost,' or 'estimated force 
account cost,' as of the time the project was 
completed. Moreover, the value was to be de¬ 
termined by qualified personnel other than 
Center personnel. 

"Our Work Program Review for FY 69 dated Sep¬ 
tember 17, 1968, states specifically: 'The 
appraised value shall reflect the cost of the 
project if it were to be constructed by for¬ 
mal contract. The estimated appraised value 
reported at the end of the fiscal year or at 
the end of the project, shall be made by 


81 



qualified personnel other than members of the 
Center staff.' Additionally, Chapter 700 of 
the CCCAM is currently being completely re¬ 
vised. It will contain language similar to 
the above; therefore, there will be no cause 
for misunderstanding in the future." 

We believe that the action taken by 0E0 to prescribe 
a standard appraisal system based on estimated contract 
cost should, if properly implemented, result in reason¬ 
able conservation work appraisals. 


82 


SCOPE OF REVIEW 


Our field review, covering in general the period 
from January 1967 to May 1968, was made principally at 
the Center; the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Albuquerque, 
New Mexico, Area Office; the Bureau's Data Center at 
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the 0E0 Southwest Regional 
Office at Austin, Texas. Our review included discus¬ 
sions with responsible officials at these locations; 
examinations of pertinent records and legislation and 
of the agreement between 0E0 and the Department of the 
Interior under which the Center was operated; and inter¬ 
views with some of the youths who were at the Center 
during our review. 


83 





s’ 



c 




































APPENDIXES 


85 



APPENDIX I 
Page 1 


EIGHT CANYON CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER 

OPERATING COSTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1967 



Total 

costs 

Amount per 
corpsman 
man-year 

COSTS APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION 105 (note a): 

Enrollee expenses: 

Clothing 

$ 66,493 

$ 395 

Subsistence 

61,380 

364 

Medical and dental supplies and services 

37,956 

225 

Educational supplies and rentals 

5,772 

34 

Vocational supplies and rentals 

1,508 

9 

Morale, recreation, and welfare 

20.689 

123 

Total enrollee expenses 

193.798 

1.150 

Operation and maintenance: 

Motor vehicle operation and maintenance 

40,329 

239 

Center facilities maintenance 

55,602 

330 

Communications 

12,236 

73 

Utilities and fuel 

17,884 

106 

Center administration supplies and services 

42.157 

250 

Total operation and maintenance 

168.208 

998 

Staff salaries: 

Educational program personnel 

66,305 

394 

Vocational program personnel 

14,518 

86 

Safety and recreation program personnel 

7,091 

42 

Guidance and counseling personnel (note b) 

124,782 

741 

Managerial and other personnel 

108,586 

644 

Medical and dental personnel 

6,470 

38 

Work project personnel 

61.123 

363 

Total staff salaries 

388.875 

2.308 

Staff travel and training: 

Staff travel--training 

3,985 

24 

Staff travel--other 

16,894 

100 

Staff training 

11 

- 

Total staff travel and training 

20.890 

124 

Enrollee pay and allowances: 

Living allowances 

57,962 

344 

Readjustment allowances 

85,663 

508 

FICA 

5,220 

31 

Allotments 

36,007 

214 

Meal tickets 

2,808 

17 

Transportation requests 

37.754 

224 

Total enrollee pay and allowances 

225.414 

1.338 

Total costs applicable under section 105 

997.185 

5.918 


86 


























APPENDIX I 
Page 2 


EIGHT CANYON CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER 


OPERATING COSTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1967 (continued) 





Amount per 



Total 

corpsman 



costs 

man-year 

COSTS NOT APPLICABLE UNDER 

SECTION 105: 



Work project supplies 
Work project equipment, 

operation, and mainte- 

64,362 

382 

nance 


20,409 

121 

Depreciation of capital 

property (note c) 

150,892 

895 

Headquarters and regional support overhead 



(note d) 


142.579 

846 

Total costs not 

applicable under section 



105 


378.242 

2,244 

Total costs 


$1,375,427 

$8.162 


£ 

Except for staff salaries, other items represent cash expenditures. 

^In addition to salaries of counselors, this amount includes salaries of per¬ 
sonnel in Corpsmen Activity Branch, such as resident youth workers and ad¬ 
visers. 

c 

Computed by the straight-line method on the basis of the established useful 
life of equipment as determined by 0E0. Real property improvements were 
amortized on the basis of the remaining life of the lease at the date of 
property acquisition. 

^Also includes the costs of agency direction (Department of the Interior), 
and the costs of recruiting, screening, and placement services. 


87 









EIGHT CANYON CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER 


TERMINATIONS OF CORPSMEN 



ENTERING CENTER 

DURING 

CALENDAR YEAR 

1967 



AS OF 

JUNE 

28, 1968 




Number 


Length-of-stay 

(in days) 



entering 




Total 

Age 

program 0 

to 30 

31 to 60 i 

61 to 89 

0 to 8 

14 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

15 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

16 

154 

11 

26 

32 

69 

17 

137 

10 

30 

25 

65 

18 

100 

9 

26 

12 

47 

19 

52 

6 

14 

5 

25 

20 

29 

1 

9 

3 

13 

21 

20 

3 

5 

1 

9 

22 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

Unknown 

9 

4 

4 

- 

8 

Total 

504 

44 

115 

78 

237 

Percent 

of 





total 

100 

8.7 

22.8 

15.5 

47.0 
































APPENDIX II 


Length-of-stay 

(in days) 

Termi¬ 

nations 

Total 

90 to 179 

Total 

0 to 179 

after 

179 days 

termi¬ 

nations 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

1 

31 

100 

24 

124 

32 

97 

26 

123 

21 

68 

19 

87 

1 14 

39 

8 

47 

7 

20 

6 

26 

6 

15 

5 

20 

- 

1 


1 

1 

9 

*—• 

9 

113 

350 

89 

439 

II 

22.4 

69.4 

17.7 

87.1 


89 






























APPENDIX III 


EIGHT CANYON CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER 

MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES NOT USED 
OR USED INEFFECTIVELY 



Number 

Cost or 


of items 

recorded va 

TRAINING MATERIALS: 

Automotive shop equipment: 

Mobile brake shop 

1 

$ 1,340 

Portable alignment set 

1 

1,007 

Auto engine stand 

2 

447 

Electronic scope analyzer 

1 

1,026 

Electronic distributor testor 

1 

736 

4-ton body & fender repair kit 

1 

166 

Parts washer 

1 

351 

Power mechanic bench 

1 

470 

Maintenance shop equipment: 

12" wood turning table 

1 

666 

Electrical bench 

1 

565 

Lapidary unit 

1 

280 

Box and pan brake 

1 

304 

Generator-alternator tester 

1 

1,056 

Tape recorders and record players 

10 

958 

Textbooks and related teaching materials 

2,343 

8,424 

Jewelry supplies 

Assorted 



quantities 

357 

Electronic instruction material 

Assorted 



quantities 

2,966 

Lapidary supplies 

Assorted 



quantities 

495 

Drafting and leathercraft equipment and sup- 

Assorted 


plies 

quantities 

1.370 

22.984 

Other materials: 

Tape duplicators, dictating recorders, 

and transcribing machines 

8 

3,370 

Water coolers 

3 

351 

Typewriters 

11 

738 

Sewing machines 

2 

433 

Cameras 

5 

867 

GSA-leased vehicles (note a) 

12 

7,252 

Bureau-owned vehicles 

8 

11,508 

Library books (note b) 

1,134 

- 

Laundry equipment (note b) 

1 

24.519 

Total 


$47,503 


Rental cost for calendar year 1967. 
kAcquired from excess property listings on a nonreimbursable basis. 


90 













APPENDIX IV 
Page 1 


EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIOENT 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC WASHINGTON, O.C. 20506 

OPPORTUNITY 

NOV 5 1968 


Mr. Henry Eschwege 
Associate Director, Civil Division 
U.S. General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Eschwege: 

Enclosed, as requested in your letter of September 23, 1968, 
is the analysis of the GAO Report on the Eight Canyon Job Corps 
Civilian Conservation Center. 


Although we generally concur in the recommendations as sub 
mitted, we have made several comments which are meant to 
be positive in nature. The responsible officials in Job Corps 
have accepted the report as a valuable management tool for 
correcting program deficiencies. 

The auditors are to be congratulated for their work and their 
professionalism in analyzing a complex program. 


Sincerely, 




Bertrand M. Harding 
Acting Director 


\ 



Enclosure 


91 


APPENDIX IV 
Page 2 


EIGHT CANYON JOB CORPS CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CENTER 

GAO REPORT 


Our analysis of the GAO Report on the Eight Canyon Job Corps Civilian 
Conservation Center did not uncover either major disagreements or 
exceptions to the report as written. It is obvious to all personnel 
who participated in the review of the report that the recommendations 
are based on an in-depth, objective analysis of the Center's operation. 
The audit and evaluation systems of Job Corps have pointed out similar 
program weaknesses and actions have been implemented prior to the 
receipt of this report to correct many of the deficiencies noted. 

There is a very strong feeling within the responsible program personnel 
of Job Corps Headquarters that the report should include statements 
relative to the causative factors which have a strong bearing on the 
recommendations contained in the report. These causative factors will 
be discussed as they relate to each recommendation contained in the 
report. 


Recommendation ; Need for Improvements in the Vocational Training 

Program (Page 13) 

The need for a total restructuring of the Eight Canyon Work 
program to provide for the proper implementation and distribution 
of skills training has been recognized and is being accomplished. The 
emphasis placed on work accomplishments at any center at the expense 
of the corpsmen's education is inexcusable and will not be tolerated 
within the Job Corps program. 

The Eight Canyon Center, which has been beset with operational problems 
on numerous occasions, is not representative of the Job Corps Civilian 
Conservation Centers program. 

The Vocational Training Program, like many other aspects of the total 
program, is being adversely affected by external factors which are 
beyond the control of the Center. 

This Center, along with the other seventy-four federally-operated 
centers, has been consistently hampered because of staff shortages, 
personnel freezes imposed by the Congress, Bureau of the Budget, etc. 
These staffing problems have seriously restricted the effectiveness 
of the Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers program. Project 
planning and implementation have also been seriously hampered by the 


92 



APPENDIX IV 
Page 3 


delay of congressional appropriations and internal dissemination of 
funds. These factors, along with all of the other external pressures 
connected to a new program such as this, must be recognized as con¬ 
tributing to the program deficiencies. 

The recommendation to supplement the work program with specialized 
vocational training at this Center raises some additional questions. 
We have ample evidence that work projects will provide the necessary 
skills training to assure the employability of the corpsmembers. 

The weakness at this Center was not the lack of availability of the 
right type of project, but rather one of failing to adequately plan 
the work program to provide for skills training. When proper work 
experience projects are available, specialized vocational programs 
should be utilized only to the extent necessary to cover climatic or 
geographic problems. In short, the work projects are to be planned 
to produce corpsmen skills rather than work accomplishment. This 
does not diminish the need to benefit the natural resources as a by¬ 
product of our primary mission. 


Recommendation : Need for Improvement in the Academic Program (Page 14) 

Again, this recommendation should be related to staffing problems 
and give full consideration to the fact that the corpsmen have pre¬ 
viously failed in a total academic situation. These young men do not 
have the attention span needed for intensified education. The balance 
between work experience and education has a favorable effect. 

The recommendation to improve the education program would implement a 
system that would keep a corpsman in a basic education system until 
his educational level reached a prescribed base before he would be allowed 
to participate in the vocational training program. This could well mean 
disaster to the Civilian Conservation Centers program, as the primary 
interest of most corpsmen is to acquire job skills as well as educational 
advancement. The two are locked together hand and glove. Admittedly, 
the corpsman's dreams and aspirations cannot be quickly met, nor can he 
be started above the simple tasks of learning to use simple hand tools. 

A corpsman must start his academic training and vocational training at 
about the same time as a means of maintaining interest and to give him 
a sense of accomplishment. The assignment of a corpsman to menial tasks 
for any extended period of time discourages the corpsman and we frequently 
lose him. The key lies in the assignment of progressively greater 
challenge in skills training and responsibility as he masters the basics. 
Conducting a basic education program in isolation from the work program 
would, in our opinion, produce negative results. 

Each corpsman has individual problems that must be dealt with, sometimes 
in innovative ways. We must allow the freedom to exercise options with 
individuals and support this to a maximum through individual goal 
setting and use of the Training Standards. 


93 



APPENDIX IV 
Page 4 


Recommendation; Need to Improve Counseling Program (Page 15) 

This recommendation is well-founded and confirms our findings that 
the counseling system was very weak at this Center. The most valuable 
counseling that takes place at Civilian Conservation Centers is not of 
a so-called purely professional nature. It takes place in an on-going 
and spontaneous situation between a staffman and a corpsman and is 
frequently most effective in an unscheduled setting. Counseling can 
occur only after a receptive situation develops through acceptance and 
trust of the staffman by the corpsman. Every corpsman needs counseling 
but very few corpsmen need or can be provided the therapy counseling 
that this report implies. 

The Corpsman Advisory System is designed to be an adjunct to the Center 
counseling efforts. It is most meaningful when the corpsman perceives 
the advisor as a person interested in his well-being and when the corps - 
man can emulate the advisor. Experience indicates that a rigid system 
of recordkeeping can hinder this relationship since such relationship is 
not amenable to formula description. However, if there is an open line 
of communication, the advisor can assist his advisee to adjust to the 
new environment and clarify the goals and objectives of the Civilian 
Conservation Center program. The guidance needed to select a vocation 
is provided by the Corpsman Advisor, Counselor, and Vocational Training 
Coordinator. This coordination of effort is needed since the Vocational 
Training Coordinator is most familiar with the Center program, the 
Counselor is best qualified to offer guidance in making such choices, 
while the Advisor is most familiar with the individual. Corpsmen 
Advisors can change attitudes and determine when the corpsman should 
be referred to the professional counselor. However, this referral is 
made only after he has done all he can for the corpsman. 


Recommendation ; Graduation Criteria (Page 15) 

The recommendation was valid. We now have standards, but the estab 
lishment of a minimum standard that provides reasonable upward mobility 
in a job answers only a part of the problem in working with each 
individual. The corpsman's time in Job Corps represents only a small 
part of the time required for most corpsmen to attain a situation of 
true upward mobility. 

Our present policies define the accomplishment of each corpsman that 
exits by the use of the Training Standards. Any assumption that con¬ 
siders that a majority of corpsmen now in Job Corps will totally 
complete the training standard during their tenure in Job Corps is 
questionable. 

We can define the level of accomplishment of any corpsmen through use 
of the standards and use them in goal setting. However, many corpsmen 
will go into industry based primarily on their ability to communicate at 
a minimum acceptable level, their ability to work with others, their 
attitude and motivation to work. 


94 






APPENDIX IV 
Page 5 


Graduation criteria in Job Corps must be related very closely with a 
positive exit from Job Corps to prevent crushing those who cannot 
meet the standards. 


Recommend at ion : Weaknesses in Controls over and Utilization of 

Property (Page 16) 

We concur in this recommendation except that the property utilization 
of the Center should be covered under OEO's audit procedures rather than 
by the program evaluation. It is doubtful that the evaluation teams 
could develop the necessary expertise in this area without the addition 
of a property specialist. 


Recommendation : Assignment of Project Appraisal Values(Page 17) 

The deficiency was one of performance rather than policy and will be 
corrected. It has been Job Corps policy that appraised values of work 
projects be assigned in accordance with established Agency procedures. 

This has been understood to mean "estimated replacement cost," 

"estimated contract cost" or "estimated force account cost;" as of the 
time the project was completed. Moreover, the value was to be determined 
by qualified personnel other than Center personnel. 

Our Work Program Review for FY 69 dated September 17, 1968 states 
specifically: "The appraised value shall reflect the cost of the project 

if it were to be constructed by formal contract. The estimated appraised 
value reported at the end of the fiscal year or at the end of the project, 
shall be made by qualified personnel other than members of the Center 
staff." Additionally, Chapter 700 of the CCCAM is currently being com¬ 
pletely revised. It will contain language similar to the above; 
therefore,there will be no cause for misunderstandings in the future. 


95 




APPENDIX V 
Page 1 



UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 


DEC 11 1968 

Mr. Allen E. Voss 

Assistant Director, Civil Division 
General Accounting Office 
Washington, D. C. 205^8 

Dear Mr. Voss: 

This responds to your September 25, 1968, request for Department of the 
Interior comments on the draft of a proposed General Accounting Office 
Report to the Congress titled "Review of Activities of the Eight Canyon 
Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center, Mescalero, New Mexico." The 
report's proposed recommendations are directed both to the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Economic Opportunity. None apply only to 
the Department of the Interior. Our comments, however, are addressed to 
what the Department believes are its contributions to management and admini¬ 
strative responsibilities in connection with all of the recommendations that 
the report includes. 

Prior to your audit, the Department participated in a task force study with 
the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Economic Opportunity on how 
the Conservation Centers' objectives and accomplishments could be improved. 
Many of your report's suggestions and recommendations are in consonance 
with the task force report. Thus our response reflects our efforts to 
implement the task force study, which,when fully accomplished, will also 
meet the objectives stated in your report. 

Of major importance in accomplishing the program improvements suggested in 
your report is the implementation of the August 1968 Job Corps Manual 
PM 400-15, Work/Vocational Training. This outlines program redirection 
accomplishing the suggestions your auditors reached in their review. Our 
analysis of the General Accounting Office draft report does not indicate 
items or points which we consider invalid. Those areas of deficiencies 
that required Departmental action have been taken. 

Our reply to the sequential recommendations follows: 

I. Recommendation (page 36). -- 

"... that the Director of Job Corps [O'EtOj and the Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs institute specialized vocational 
training programs at the Center which are directed specifically 
toward the development of knowledge and skills for occupational 


96 



APPENDIX V 
Page 2 


areas beyond the Helper and Laborer categories. We agree with 
the concept of the Task Force Report that work projects be closely 
attuned to developing such knowledge and skills; however, where 
work projects cannot provide such necessary training, we recommend 
that they be included in the corpsman's curriculum only to the 
extent needed to develop good work habits and that major emphasis 
be placed on intensive vocational training which will provide a 
corpsman with skills that will aid him in job placement and in 
enhancing his ability and advancement in a job." 

COMMENT 


In August 1968 (prior to completion of the GAO review), Section PM 400-15 
of the Job Corps Work/Vocational Training Program Manual was issued to comply 
with the Task Force Report recommendation that Conservation "Centers" give 
corpsmen terminal-type vocational training intended to directly aid them in 
obtaining jobs and in enhancing their ability to earn advancement when 
employed. This policy change prescribed in Manual Section PM 400-15 is now 
in the process of being implemented in all Interior Job Corps Conservation 
Centers, and such implementation is on schedule. 

This change in concept will provide a dual role for the Job Corps conserva¬ 
tion center by providing on-the-job-training opportunities for disadvantaged 
youth in actual work activities which are directed toward conserving and 
developing the natural resources and recreational areas of the nation as 
well as classroom-oriented vocational training for apprentice or tradesmen 
fields in the laboring forces when they leave the program. 

II. Recommendation (page 45). -- 

"In order that corpsmen may have opportunity to realize their 
maximum academic potential, we recommend that the Director of 
Job Corps and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs require that 
the Director of the Eight Canyon Center place greater emphasis 
on this aspect of the corpsmen's training by establishing pro¬ 
cedures and practices which will minimize class absences by both 
corpsmen and instructors and provide for more intensive training 
during classes. 

"Also, ... in order that corpsmen may receive maximum oppor¬ 
tunity to benefit from vocational training we recommend that the 
Director, Job Corps, consider appropriate methods for providing 
low-achieving corpsmen with opportunities to reach academic levels 
needed for successful participation in vocational training pro¬ 
grams before their assignment to such programs." 


97 




APPENDIX V 
Page 3 


COMMENT 


The Eight Canyon Center has adopted the following procedures to reduce 
class absences by corpsmen and instructors: 

Corpsmen - (l) Warehouse hours have been designated from 4:30 p.m. to 
8:30 p.m. so there will be no excused absence for clothing or linen issue 
or exchange during the education or work day; (2) individual corpsmen counsel 
ing sessions have been scheduled so that no more than three corpsmen are 
absent from class at any one time; (3) corpsmen are inspected for proper 
dress in the breakfast line and those not properly attired are sent back 
to the dormitory to change clothing, thus eliminating necessity for inter¬ 
ruption of their education or work day; (4) the Center rules and regulations 
governing corpsmen's unexcused absences from education, work, and other 
assignments are being strictly enforced; and (5) proper records and schedules 
of corpsmen's participation in the Center's education program are being main¬ 
tained and followed. 

Instructors - Action has been taken to preclude education classes being 
left unattended: (l) the work and supervision connected with publishing the 
Center newspaper are now performed after regular duty hours; (2) the attend¬ 
ance of the education staff at meetings has been scheduled at a minimum; 

(3) the testing program is administered by the principal teacher assisted 
by the assistant counselor, which relieves the classroom teacher of this 
responsibility; (4) the annual leave schedule is staggered to provide 
adequate supervision and coverage in each class; and ( 5 ) classroom arrange¬ 
ments have been effected to enable one teacher to oversee two classrooms, 
if necessary. Under the present system, no classroom is unattended at any 
time. 


Vocational Training - Regarding the provision for providing low-achieving 
corpsmen with opportunities to reach academic levels needed for successful 
participation in the vocational training program, mandatory requirements for 
corpsmen's educational scheduling and program completion have been instituted. 
The reading program is being emphasized with all low-achieving corpsmen 
scheduled for two hours of reading per day during the education week and 
one hour of reading per day during the work week. Additionally, a new corps- 
man entering a conservation center is processed through a 30-90 hay orienta¬ 
tion period wherein his academic level, physical ability, behavioral pattern, 
etc., is determined. Based upon the orientation period determinations, the 
corpsman's preferences, and the work projects available, he is assigned to a 
particular vocational program where it can be reasonably expected that such 
training will be productive. 

IV. Recommendation (page j6). -- 

"With regard to the Center's ineffective utilization of the 
property identified by our review and the failure to report 
property not being used as excess to requirements, we recom¬ 
mend to the Director of 0E0 and the Commissioner of Indian 


98 










APPENDIX V 
Page 4 


■Affairs that future evaluations of the Center's activities by 
the Bureau and 0E0 representatives be broadened to include 
determinations as to the effectiveness of the use and disposal 
of property." 


COMMENT 


Determination of the use and disposal of Eight Canyon Center equipment was 
not up-to-date at the time of the GAO review. Future Bureau of Indian 
Affairs semi-annual, evaluations will emphasize determinations of the effec¬ 
tiveness with which property is used and disposed of. Much of the equip¬ 
ment that may have been ineffectively utilized or excess during the GAO 
review is now needed to implement PM 400-15 of the Work/Vocational Program 
Manual. Determinations of use and disposal of equipment are a part of the 
audits performed by the Department's Job Corps audit operation and this 
deficiency would have been identified in an audit of this Center scheduled 
for early 1968 if it had not been postponed in order to avoid conflict 
with, and duplication of, the GAO audit. 

V. Recommendation (page 84). -- 

"In order to ensure that reasonable conservation work appraisal 
valuations may be available to the Congress for its considera¬ 
tion in evaluating this aspect of the Job Corps program, we 
recommend that the Director of the Job Corps prescribe a 
standard appraisal system to be followed ,by all conservation 
centers in assigning values to conservation work performed." 


COMMENT 


We recognize the benefit of this recommendation. The Job Corps Civilian 
Conservation Centers operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been 
instructed to utilize the Department of the Interior's system of assigning 
appraisals on the basis of an engineering appraisal of replacement cost of 
a given work project. Thus, within the Department of the Interior there is 
only one appraisal system for all its camps in effect until such time as 
the 0E0 is able to carry out your recommendation. 

We are pleased that the GAO draft report recommendations directed to the 
Department of the Interior are in general agreement with the earlier Task 
Force Report recommendations that are now in the process of being fully 
implemented in all Department of the Interior Job Corps Centers. 


Sincerely yours, 



ector of Survey and Review 


99 





APPENDIX VI 
Page 1 

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF 
THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT 


Tenure of office 

From To 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OP¬ 
PORTUNITY: 


Donald Rumsfeld 


May 

1969 

Present 

Bertrand M. Harding 

(acting) 

Mar. 

1968 

May 

1969 

Sargent Shriver 


Oct. 

1964 

Mar. 

1968 

DIRECTOR, JOB CORPS: 






William P. Kelly 


Dec. 

1966 

Present 

Franklyn A. Johnson 

(note a) 

Feb. 

1966 

Dec. 

1966 

Otis A. Singletary 

(note b) 

Apr. 

1965 

Dec. 

1965 


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: 


Walter J. Hickel 

Jan. 

1969 

Present 

Stewart L. Udall 

Jan. 

1961 

Jan. 

1969 

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: 





Russell E. Train 

Jan. 

1969 

Present 

David S. Black 

Aug. 

1967 

Jan. 

1969 

Charles F. Luce 

Sept. 

1966 

Aug. 

1967 

John A. Carver, Jr. 

Jan. 

1965 

Sept. 

1966 


100 






APPENDIX VI 
Page 2 

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF 
THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT (continued) 


_ Tenure of office 

From To 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued) 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE IN¬ 


TERIOR (ADMINISTRATION): 


Robert C. McConnell 

Aug. 

1967 

Feb. 

1969 

Vacant 

Dec. 

1965 

Aug. 

1967 

D. Otis Beasley 

Sept. 

1952 

Dec. 

1965 

COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: 

Robert L. Bennett 

Apr. 

1966 

Present 

Philleo Nash 

Sept. 

1961 

Mar. 

1966 


a Served as a consultant to OEO from October 1965 until his 
appointment as Director, Job Corps, in February 1966. 

kServed as consultant to OEO from October 1964 until his 
appointment as Director, Job Corps, in April 1965. 


U.S. GAO, Wash., D.C. 


101 









. 























. 










































p B 




















































^ 4 > 






"'7 

k 'y * 

o '° • * 4 a a 

. <jr o « c„ <s> 



A*4 V 



'A A 




• a v *V 

■* V > •- 

o '• • * * A <V 

^O A c o « • * <S> 

, -> A* .*^W. *r 

■’b v* : 




*> *£» 4 

. ^ 0 


4 °K 
CL’ *<' 


e i i 


’\** h °o ^o° \ V* U "''<P °°^ °° f* .. 

v 7^4A ^ a?* ***“', ^ . V s ** x - 4 ? A* # »'. ,. v 

^ <?V /V «- t rC\W/h,° ^ a^ * * <£« A 

C ,/y * ^T/Wkv^v » \V« > ' J . j S?ll!MM^^ o t G'Or* O WW\^? * a.V«* - 1 ° cP °?n o 

'■^'/s T/y Vy* * ,sjs ♦$» ( * yO '■Qp. o i/ W yj * A * • AWT| * 4 ■* v* <■ 

,v ^ °* 0 "P .a'' . ■• , * ^ . 4- V <$*. * ^ ^ 4 


t ' a 


>3 '0.1“ A 

„ "^O a V c 0 " 0 * 

**Vs0±* ° A '’^\AV ^ y 

*^a- •bv* °«^»-. ** 0 < 







O * ° * * ** 4^ \ v • o a » -V» 

^O o 0 * 0 ♦ A* . * 

'- J A -*^^Sk<- A ‘ 

^ ^ ° /AS^Ik* ** Ta /n\ 



4 O. 

07 *<» 



% •'^ f ’',/ ^* 5^ - / \' • -^ • '* / % ' • - . • ^0 

^ ,o s ' P \} sv?% c\ .0^ »'""» ^ v^ aO «> 

\/m ^ .-atev %/ w .'»•: \/ .♦ 


0 M O 




. v^- 



v"^ 



^ A? 



s ^ -v 

,* ,V ^ 

v <, *^T , /s 5 s (y '°»‘* <V 

<V r o^ ° 0 ^ 

O' t^k , ^ . vi , ^KV0i%* 7^. , 

.... * .^’ °o *'T^?J- 0° % '*.. ■^•' ^ % 

»*®y V- V s o 



4 

07 



A ^ o WfW^t* ^ ^ 

■ ^ °.W v V „ 

^ '»•*’* A <*> 

c ° • - r ^ - ^ 

^o a 



4 c> 

07 ^ 



: 


O 'o . * » A 
■**- A c o~ c 




, n o ^ 

o N O , u ( 5 > 

. ,0 V o’*"' ' 

ap .*? AXM/Zh o A 


So* 


A- *■ 

A/ • „ 

<. *?*?.*' .g^ ^ A <> *<'..* 4 jy Au '°*‘ , 1 < 

a- o- - * <^ <y V ^ c °4^' r o- ^ r 0> tv l JA*. °o ,4 








G , 





%-'.V.' ^ 0 - 

> V N .^A* 'v C\ ,0 V •'••< 

/s y t <- k* . a T> ’ 

A *■ -r>K^ • * n A 



; Wf^: 

, .A 'A V > 

sS A v J '°'‘ , ‘ \ A <> 

0^ ’ l '*’ O A^ o “1° . <K 

^ A * Assm* - ^ 


•o v" 



o A vv 

- - * ^ - '*&/]]'& * N 

o N ° 0 «o • » 1 

o. .0 *!•«' ^ V * s 





V O A . » \ L • « * 

A^ '■"A 0 * ,< 

o» ' * A^'’j'C''- *>v , ^ 


4 °* 

L' ^ 





?v 0v ^ ‘ 4- 

r k, *A\o 

i v . » * O , 




A V • 

\p '».»* a <r < ’’.. ** A’ °w '"*•** A <A 

« 1 ' a -e ^O , G c, 0 ” ° < n^ . 1 ' » * O A 1 ^ o 0 * 0 » 

♦Vv7^r ° <A ^ ,° ° a^ 





V v % 

^ ^ : 

SC'V 





0 N 0 


< \ y V t • * 



•o v 


, 0 ' 



a 4v ► 
<^p <A 

.J> c,^ 


A V *V 
0 V ^ 



Y> 



VO' 


>y° At* ."<5 WMF' 4- 

^ %-WA/ % 

A .:k-i:._ A 

vr 


?>° 'V 


° V 

/ A A 


* a v A. 

♦ A v o 



° 

A <jA ^ 



s' „G 'o 0 » 




* A^> 

* •o %. 

-"- "'A••■ 

^ .-r •V’^^DV- .4 



4 p. 

37 


,0 ^ AAZD’^y b 

A A " 1 A 

0 •-*•- ^ v 

V 







“W .Oy, > 
^ ^ ■ 


,0" 


vr*V 

- A'V • 

oy <1* ° 

rA . ^ • „ ^o A 0 0 " c * <A 

- V 0 +W/^’ ° >T *^\W **V G° * l 

: :§miQfi- *bv* 

* A°<* »»§Sv v 

<,y o v^i^v o ^ 

<** % * 0 '' 0, a 0 

v* c\ ,vy 




4 o. -, 

■OA y<< « ' 

^ o V' ,B 'A£s :53 ~ • 0 * ' 

^ „ 9 V O * aH o* , 0 J %, *0 

^ a 0 v » 1 * o, ^ 4 s * * ^c\ »« • o, - ^> 

l* T, A~v * . (■?. JS • /V A <" *F*. » ft 9 I .-s. 

* ^ *mA" ^ * ‘Tvrv^ A ,(l\w/h 1 c ' ^ 

_ . »: : m§Myil vv ° ^ v v 

» • -* * 1 )^ ° A ^ o * .A A* -* '^OIli §7 o ,S ^r, l • aV^ 1 s 

^ V^SKp** ^ °. ^Jaav 9 N ^ V^StST* - * A* ^ °. J^Iav ^ 0 

<v A 'V' 0 **" A <v ‘A -* 4 A ^> A '».»’* A <^ 4 ... ,v 

; + < ^£» 0 ^ • L 1 * + O c° Wc - ( 0 ^ • t 1 • ^ q 0 o * c / 0 ^ 

. e *r C, 1 /Y 7 ^ -r o 1 *^ ♦ <ASN\ r * 7 * (^ t _, AO • r^N\ * «#> /* U 

T\>fc j* ^ v 4 i^Y//>VS „ . \5 . cSNXVxV^ jv v> 4 {^rt! /f?y „ \j ^NxWVwV .« Vo 

:fliffi&' *of* :^lfe*. **«< '/SUPv. 

4 o. 

’■i' 






^ . >• ' 


- . O , k » t <\ 

o°\c;^ °o 

=>. r 

>. ^0 

? ; a°xv : ®||^,o *■ 



s * • 



\0 vV * Q 

V «. 

<\° * * 1 A °^ °»° A 0 ^ 

C\ ,0 ».*••- V> V N c\ a 0 V » , *°- > V 4 s * 0 

\/ A vf^'- ^ "" 

<y> owW* a v^v 

_ „ ' , ^ >,< ^ v ' * <^y 0 * A v 

^o*'o . »• 4 A <v 0 ^ ^ 

^O. A<V ' ‘ ^ ^ 


«Ww* a v ^ : i»KP° »; a 

^ w > o N \ ♦ a'' ° l M/ / ^SAr * A/ 

'T .« 4 ,G V o A <V o '».‘ < A 

o v • v * * -» A c 0 w 0 * • 1 * ® -» o A o ° 

■ 4 > ^5 *■ «aLvA^ > * -X - ^§Av\lf^ A * &{\l/'yyi? ■* v>^ 4 y - _*^S 



o > 


c\ ,9 *!,•«- 

• <tr , 9 ^ " 4 jCA. 

*“ . C -' « rv\\ Vr -vV//>-! 




j0 v ^ 

• ^- -o '*.t.«- .o> \/‘-?r ,-'-y -♦. 

V % C\ o v * • * °» P- \A i‘V' + c\ 

> \ % / : 'di$M‘ \A . , ^fe'-- \ 

^ *&\/. -^i* ^ *^>v • *3 »V ^ * 

' ** AA ^ " >4 ^ ^ < 1 / ^4 v’ 

v v —-* Jr 9* *°"' t C A 

<& C. 0 M ° + (V • 1 1 * * ^O a4^ g 0 W c 4 . I- ' « ^ ^o A f 0 

**^SSb<- V <• ° A ,-^Sl,-C- ^ t 0 .^yK%.* o 4 * • 

'•' J’ 0- ^ •'“ 





• .^; %/ :S 

o -; n ^v’ o 0 ^ y<aw*s ^ o o "V * 

°^ ° - 0 A 0 v. * - 1 % A 0 ^ 

c* ,9 V AVL% c\ ,9 v 

• ^ y 'm££°. % y *^fe'- ^ ^ 


4 A > v\ • 4 ^ v 

> ^. v “• “ ^ ^ 'Mwf' -0A <3 

T.S 4 A o, '••*’• A 

0 ^ ^o ,A % 




o u , 




6 * V 

. ■» A?- V 


*1 o>. 

<JA ■*> 



4 O^ 

KJA ^ 



-r *\y C 

O • 

,'. ■‘b y ; 

\ : 1° ■%. ’. 

••% \ <y **•*•- O v % j 5 > 

• ^ A ••*%<? A- * 

*" «n 4 


* -Q. V • Y$ 4 V V *^££R\WP •% <L V 

/. s 4 . 0 ^ ' 3 , '° ♦ * * A <V *'.. 54 A Cr 

O N o <£ p. V 4 V ' » 4 Vj . 0 N o <J> p.v V 

' ^ G w o ^ •V^v^ 'c, G u i . 4 

«i* *y ^ 4 j 25 vt f///*-? _ .\ t cS\\\\n'«. »i* *7 v 4 

• ^o* v °£ .“''SHli^-. ^o 4 •'/ 

’.” Jp ^ V , 

V *^T’ ^ °o . 





'c\ .9* * ♦ * o, 

- •&*. A y fi. ^ „ * 

• A %A¥A 

** . n C ^ « cV\\ Aw//>i 


1 

» «V-^. j 0 'f'n o tA^^vav • , A A. j ^irffij^^ 0 r 

4 A > 4 A? v> O V -> J ^ -1 4 A> 4 A- 

• * * A CV A ^ '°-‘ 4 a \9 *'..* 4 A V 

*«■ ^ -^iUr A <?*>'#£%£: °° A -^v-A A,c 

”“"* -^o 4 :imt£- *o£> ;^S*. -^o 4 .'jfl 



^o 1 


'o'V JJ^k'vF * a 9 

•». »- A 

0 » 0 ^ t• , ■'*' , -A t° 

: ^ 0 ^ ^ A 0 


STINE A .'tWr-J «> 

FLA - 8,1 A^ 

Y> V * 

208 1 ". ts. Jp • 


o ♦...• f 0- 

s • • > o ,r\ % 



K . Cff W 

k 0 rs^ 






















